Jan 6, 2014 ... 4 engaged in working with the parties for some months. 5 now to ensure that ......
8 is it's a problem for them as well. 9. Amtrak is a publicly ...
In The Matter Of: IN THE MATTER OF AMTRAK AND PRLBC
ARBITRATION HEARING Vol. 1 January 6, 2014
Original File 0106141AMLB01.txt
Min-U-Script®
1
BEFORE THE AMTRAK/PRLBC ARBITRATION BOARD IN THE MATTER OF
) ) NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER ) CORPORATION (AMTRAK) ) ) and ) ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF ) WAY EMPLOYEES (BMWED), affiliated ) with TEAMSTERS RAIL CONFERENCE, ) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ) TEAMSTERS ) ) and ) NMB NO. A-13638 ) BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN,) AFL-CIO(BRS) ) ) and their representative ) ) PASSENGER RAIL LABOR ) BARGAINING COALITION (PRLBC) ) The hearing in the above-entitled matter commenced on the 6th day of January, 2014, at 10:01 a.m., at the offices of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. BEFORE:
IRA JAFFE, ESQ. CHAIRMAN HERBERT FISHGOLD, ESQ. SHYAM DAS, ESQ.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
2
1
ON BEHALF OF THE PASSENGER RAIL LABOR BARGAINING COALITION (PRLBC):
2 3 4 5 6 7
ROLAND P. WILDER, JR., ESQ. STEPHEN J. FEINBERG, ESQ. Baptiste & Wilder, P.C. 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 315 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 223-0723
[email protected] [email protected] ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK):
8 9 10 11 12 13
THOMAS REINERT, JR., ESQ. DONALD L. HAVERMANN, ESQ. JONATHAN C. FRITTS, ESQ. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 739-5084
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
14 15 16 17 18
COURT REPORTER:
JOSEPH INABNET INABNET COURT REPORTING (ICR) 9250 Mosby Street, Suite 201 Manassas, Virginia 20110 (703) 331-0212
[email protected]
19 20 21 22
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
3
1 2
WITNESSES
3
CHARLES WOODCOCK:
4
Direct examination by Mr. Reinert . . . . . . 69 Cross-examination by Mr. Wilder . . . . . . . .160 Redirect examination by Mr. Reinert . . . . . . 212 Recross-examination by Mr. Wilder . . . . . .215 Further recross by Mr. Wilder . . . . . . . . .231
5 6 7 8 9 10
EXHIBITS (All Exhibits premarked and preadmitted)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
4
1
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
And I would like to
3
note for the record that this proceeding is an
4
interest arbitration taking place pursuant to a
5
September 6, 2013 Interest Arbitration Agreement
6
executed by the parties.
7
They have also reached a variety of
8
procedural and ground rules agreements, which were
9
also placed in writing and submitted to the Board
10
prior to this morning's hearing.
11
The parties also docketed, in accordance
12
with that agreement, several hundred exhibits, and
13
they are all deemed admitted as part of the record.
14
In addition, we'll lay out the usual
15
ground rule.
If there's anything else that's marked
16
during the course of the proceeding, it is
17
presumptively admitted subject to any objection that
18
might be raised to the Board that the Board
19
sustains.
20
Before we get to opening statements, if I
21
could ask those in the room who have cell phones or
22
similar devices to at least try and make certain
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
5
1
that they're on silent mode, if not turned off.
2
That will probably at least limit the unexpected
3
interruptions in the proceedings today.
4
And it's my understanding that the carrier
5
will be opening first.
6
MR. REINERT:
7
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
8
At your convenience, Mr. Reinert.
9
MR. REINERT:
10
Reinert.
11
Passenger Corporation.
12
That is correct. Okay.
Good morning.
I'm Thomas
I represent the National Railroad
I want to welcome you all to our offices
13
at Morgan Lewis, and I hope that this facility
14
proves appropriate and comfortable for this hearing.
15
As an initial matter, I want to thank the
16
board members, Mr. Jaffe, Mr. Fishgold, and Mr. Das,
17
for undertaking this case.
18
This is an important case for Amtrak.
19
It's an important case for the BMWED and the BRS.
20
And we appreciate both your willingness to take this
21
case and to accommodate us with respect to schedule
22
to get it scheduled in a concise period where we can
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
6
1
put the case on effectively.
2
Chairman Jaffe made reference to ground
3
rules and procedural issues.
4
engaged in working with the parties for some months
5
now to ensure that procedural issues were resolved
6
as much as they could be prior to the hearing, and
7
that process has been very effective.
8 9 10
He, in fact, has been
I would also like to just say a word of thanks to the PRLBC Council, Roland Wilder and Stephen Feinberg.
11
We have worked cooperatively in preparing
12
this case in many ways going back to the negotiation
13
of the Interest Arbitration Agreement, the ground
14
rules, the joint exhibits, all the procedural issues
15
which are, for both parties' interests, going to
16
expedite and make this proceeding simpler, more
17
efficient.
18
It's good to have a professional
19
relationship with opposing counsel that enables us
20
to facilitate issues.
21 22
I would also, on behalf of Amtrak, want to say a word of thanks to the leadership of the BMWED
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
7
1
and the BRS for agreeing to this interest
2
arbitration process.
3
Interest arbitration, we believe, will
4
prove to be the best way to resolve this round,
5
which needs to be resolved.
6
alternative than a Presidential Emergency Board.
7
think we all recognize that, given the political
8
environment, that it was best not to push these
9
issues to either the President or Congress, but
It is a better
10
attempt to resolve them through this interest
11
arbitration procedure.
12
And I think that that agreement between
13
the parties is the beginning of a process that we
14
hope leads to an overall Collective Bargaining
15
Agreement resolution.
16
I
We have a number of rank and file of BMWE
17
and BRS members present here today, as well as a
18
number of issues -- number of folks who hold Union
19
positions.
20
At the outset, I would like to say Amtrak
21
recognizes your contribution to the railroad.
22
are skilled workers.
Your jobs are physically
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
You
8
1
challenging, and you perform an important role in
2
maintaining and rebuilding the infrastructure of
3
Amtrak, which is in need of both maintenance and
4
rebuilding.
5
That obviously, does not mean that Amtrak
6
can agree with your labor organization's demands on
7
all issues.
8 9
We are in a collective bargaining process that has lead to this legal proceeding that's an
10
adversary proceeding.
And you will, in the course
11
of today and the next couple of weeks, hear two
12
conflicting positions.
13
You will hear many things said by me and
14
other counsel for Amtrak and Amtrak witnesses with
15
which you are certainly going to disagree.
16
You should not read any of that
17
disagreement, however, as in any way disrespecting
18
your work or your contribution, which Amtrak values.
19
It is a disagreement that's inherent in this
20
process, and this process is a means to get to
21
resolution.
22
I do want to take a moment to introduce
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
9
1
the Amtrak team and the Morgan, Lewis, Bockius team
2
that's here today.
3 4
To my right is Charlie Woodcock, who is the senior labor relations officer for Amtrak.
5
You will be hearing later this week and
6
seeing Bruce Pohlot, who is the chief engineering
7
officer.
8
officer, and Joseph Boardman, the CEO of the
9
railroad.
10
D.J. Stadtler, who is the chief operating
On our side, this has been a cooperative
11
effort between an Amtrak and a Morgan Lewis legal
12
team.
13
the right of Charlie Woodcock, who is the managing
14
deputy general counsel.
15
Bloom, who is senior associate general council.
16
Their paralegal, Amy Flynn, from Amtrak is in the
17
room right behind them.
18
From Amtrak Legal, we have Phil Hermann to
And to his right is Tom
Our Morgan Lewis team consists of me and
19
two of my partners, who will be examining witnesses
20
Don Havermann and Jonathan Fritts at the end, but
21
we're really backed up by a team of junior lawyers
22
who do most of the work, quite frankly.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
10
1
And we have David Broderdorf, Kirsten
2
White, and Dave Larson, who you have either seen or
3
heard from in the course of this proceeding.
4
We thank them, and I thank them
5
personally, for their efforts in getting us here
6
today.
7 8 9
Before I begin my substantive comments, I want to talk a moment about this process. This interest arbitration is in lieu of a
10
Presidential Emergency Board.
11
parties have agreed to from day one of the
12
discussions in a mediation where the idea of
13
interest arbitration was raised.
14
That's something the
And that's the reason, in agreeing to a
15
board for this proceeding, we agreed to a board of
16
the caliber of this board, which is the caliber of a
17
Presidential Emergency Board.
18 19
All Board members have prior PEB experience.
20
In fact, I thought that when I was first
21
thinking about opening argument, I thought I might
22
start this opening argument by a quip saying welcome
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
11
1
to PEB No. 244.
2
was taken last month by the Long Island Railroad and
3
Mr. Jaffe.
4
But it so happened that that number
The point of that statement is to just
5
stress, this case does have a relationship to
6
Presidential Emergency Board 242, which was the
7
Amtrak last round, and Presidential Emergency Board
8
243, which was the freights in the current round.
9
It's no accident that Chairman Jaffe was a
10
member of PEB 242, chairman of PEB 243, and is
11
chairman of this board.
12 13
We didn't plan on PEB 244, but the reality is there is some overlapping issues there.
14
So if you look at PEB 242, 243, and even
15
244, there are relationships to the issues in this
16
case, so we're going to treat this like a PEB.
17
I should say probably the pay is better
18
for the arbitrators, and the pace of preparations a
19
bit easier for the counsel.
20
we're thinking of it as a PEB.
21 22
But for all purposes,
And as in a PEB, what we're going to ask the Board members to do is to do their jobs, to hear
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
12
1
the record of our witnesses and our arguments, and
2
the other side's witnesses and their arguments, give
3
careful and due consideration to the entire record,
4
and then provide us with your best work, your best
5
work in fashioning an appropriate collective
6
bargaining solution.
7 8 9
Let me turn to the substantive issues in this case and Amtrak's position. Amtrak would describe the issues in this
10
case as really two, two principal issues:
11
what is the appropriate reference point for
12
fashioning a settlement?
13
appropriate terms of such a settlement?
First,
And, second, what are the
14
Now, Amtrak has and will argue that the
15
Amtrak internal pattern set in 2010 should be the
16
predominant reference point.
17
PRLBC has and will argue that an internal
18
pattern of the freight settlements from 2012 should
19
be the predominant reference point.
20
You will hear about internal patterns,
21
external patterns.
You will hear about "precedent"
22
of various PEBs and interest arbitration decisions.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
13
1 2
But the reality is that there is no precedent binding this Board in any legal sense.
3
Patterns are very important, and they will
4
be argued strenuously in this proceeding, but no
5
pattern is written in stone.
6
The Board is being asked to fashion a
7
settlement.
8
immediate problem that's unique to the labor
9
relations situation and the dispute before this
10
Board.
11 12
That's a practical, fact-specific,
My job, our job as advocates, is to help you do your job.
13
We do that, one, by attempting to give you
14
a thorough understanding of the facts that produce
15
this dispute and brought us here today.
16
And, two, by trying to identify
17
alternatives that this Board can consider in doing
18
its job of fashioning a settlement.
19
That's Amtrak's goal in the hearing.
20
That's what our presentation will be directed
21
towards.
22
To that end, I'm going to organize my
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
14
1
substantive comments around three areas.
2 3
One is pattern; two is timing; and three I call opportunity.
4
Pattern and timing really go to what are
5
the appropriate reference points for settlement.
6
Opportunity really goes to how you fashion the
7
settlement.
8 9
Let me begin with pattern because it's a central issue in this case.
10
In this round, there is an Amtrak internal
11
pattern.
12
matter of opinion.
13
That is an undeniable fact.
It is not a
Now, we will present in detail,
14
principally through Charlie Woodcock, the details of
15
the Amtrak pattern.
16
have 17 voluntary Amtrak agreements since 2010.
17
Thirteen of 15 of our labor organizations are
18
covered under these voluntary agreements.
19
But just to briefly review, we
Sitting here today, 84 percent of the
20
represented Amtrak employees are under these
21
voluntary agreements.
22
agreements include operating employees.
These Amtrak pattern
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
They
15
1
include nonoperating employees.
2
We had two-thirds of the Amtrak employees
3
under such agreements before PEB 243 was even issued
4
and there were any freight deals.
5
Indeed, we had 57 percent of our employees
6
under the Amtrak pattern agreement by the end of
7
2010.
8
agreements, the sheet metal workers, the IBBB, the
9
NCFO.
10 11
They were all PRLBC coalition units that broke away to join the Amtrak internal pattern.
12 13
This even includes, under the Amtrak pattern
The terms of the Amtrak internal pattern are fairly simple and fairly straightforward.
14
Wages, we have a schedule of general wage
15
increases during the duration of the contract, July
16
1, 2010 to January 1, 2015, amounting to 14 percent.
17
Compounded, obviously more.
18
Moderate changes in health benefits with
19
respect to 15 percent employee contribution with
20
caps.
21
$75.
22
Emergency room co-pay increase from 50 to
The duration, as I have said, is through
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
16
1 2 3 4
January 1, 2015. The agreements all have me-too clauses, and we'll hear more about that later. There is some variation in work rules, but
5
they all address work rules.
6
rules with respect to discipline and payroll
7
practices that are in the majority of settlements.
8
And then there is variation with respect
9 10
to craft-specific work rules. But all were part of the pattern of
11
patterned negotiations.
12
efficiency of operations.
13 14 15
They're common work
All help effectuate the
So given these facts of this Amtrak internal pattern, what's the PRLBC's position? Well, they take a very surprising position
16
in our view.
17
that an 'internal pattern' exists on Amtrak..."
18
That's in their brief, page 2.
19
They say:
"PRLBC rejects the notion
Now, Amtrak understands that the BMWE and
20
the BRS do not like the fact that other unions
21
seized the initiative and established the internal
22
Amtrak pattern.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
17
1
We also very well understand that PRLBC
2
unions don't like the terms of the Amtrak internal
3
pattern.
4
pattern is not a matter of the PRLBC's belief.
5
a matter of objective reality.
6
But the existence of the Amtrak internal It's
And prior Presidential Emergency Boards
7
and interest arbitration decision makers have
8
articulated standards for determining that an
9
internal pattern exists.
10
One, there needs to be critical mass.
11
Typically more than 50 percent of the employees have
12
to be covered.
13
We have 84 percent.
Two, you need to have some operating and
14
nonoperating employees.
15
unions.
16
non-ops.
17 18
We have the operating
We have the mechanical trades.
We have
We have everything except the two engineering unions that are here before you.
19
Third, the pattern has to be
20
contemporaneous in the same period of agreement.
21
All these agreements are covering the same period at
22
issue here.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
18
1
We opened agreements January 1, 2010.
And
2
their duration, as I have said, goes through January
3
1, 2015.
4
And, finally, they cover both noneconomic
5
and economic terms.
6
traditionally the core of the pattern, GWIs, we also
7
have healthcare and work rule issues.
8 9 10
While economic issues are
So the Amtrak agreements since 2010 meet all the recognized standards for an internal pattern.
11
There's an old expression, If it looks
12
like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a
13
duck, then it's a duck.
14
The Amtrak internal pattern was formulated
15
as a pattern.
16
was publicized as a pattern.
17
Amtrak employees as a pattern.
18
pattern.
19
It was bargained as a pattern.
It
It was discussed among It was ratified as a
It's a pattern. Given these unavoidable facts, how does
20
the PRLBC argue that the Amtrak internal pattern
21
does not exist?
22
Well, they really present three arguments.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
19
1
Their first argument is, "there is no
2
stable 'internal pattern' on Amtrak's property."
3
It's from their brief, page 3.
4
Well, what does that mean?
5
What does it mean "no stable 'internal
6 7
pattern'"? Implicity, I think the PRLBC is saying,
8
which is true, that this Board could destabilize the
9
Amtrak internal pattern by adopting as a Board the
10
PRLBC proposal based upon the freight deal.
11
But that's a totalogy.
12
All internal patterns can be destabilized
13
by a subsequent inconsistent interest arbitration
14
award breaking the pattern.
15
major reason that Presidential Emergency Boards and
16
interest arbitrators have sided for not breaking the
17
pattern because breaking the pattern destabilized
18
the situation.
19
Indeed, that's the
So attaching the label of not stable to
20
the Amtrak internal pattern is really meaningless.
21
But the PRLBC goes on, and they cite the
22
me-too clauses that were agreed to by the settling
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
20
1
unions as the reason that the pattern is not stable.
2
You'll be hearing more about the me-too
3
clauses.
4
what they mean.
5
in the labor relations knows what me-too clauses are
6
about.
7
We'll explain how they were negotiated and But I think anyone who is involved
When the Union has the courage to settle
8
early, it often seeks me-too protection.
It creates
9
an incentive for the carrier not to break the
10
pattern.
11
union that it's not going to be embarrassed and its
12
members are not going to be relatively disadvantaged
13
if the carrier does break the pattern.
14 15
It provides insurance to the settling
It's a defensive action that protects the settling unions.
16
So what's the PRLBC's argument?
17
Well, they don't view these clauses as a
18
defensive shield for the settling unions that enter
19
them, but they view it as an offensive sword for the
20
BMWE and the BRS to break the pattern.
21
In their world view, these me-too clauses
22
negotiated by other unions, other Amtrak unions, to
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
21
1
protect themselves are for the PRLBC's benefit and a
2
reason, they articulate, that this Board should
3
consider breaking the pattern.
4
Well, where I grew up in New York, we have
5
a word for this type of argument.
6
from the Yiddish.
7
It's borrowed
It's called chutzpah.
The only analogy I can draw is, because
8
I'm prudent enough to have fire insurance on my
9
house, that gives you a right to come burn it down.
10
That's not what me-too clauses are about.
11
Me-too clauses provide absolutely no justification
12
for breaking a pattern.
13
Well, the me-too clause is evidence that
14
the settling unions and Amtrak were intent the
15
pattern not be broken.
16
PRLBC's twisted view of me-too clauses just has no
17
basis in labor relations.
18
So, just at the outset, the
But there is something PRLBC says about
19
the me-too clauses that we actually agree with.
20
They cite them as relevant as to financial issues,
21
on the financial implications of what's before the
22
Board.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
22
1
What the PRLBC argues is, "the difference
2
between the cost of PRLBC's proposal and Amtrak's
3
budgeted expectations is minimal and, even if the
4
other unions exercise their me-too provisions, the
5
change in Amtrak's fiscal condition is
6
insignificant."
7
It's in the PRLBC brief at 8.
8
I think Thomas Roth in his report always
9
describes it as imperceptible.
10
Where we agree with the PRLBC is that this
11
Board must assume, as the PRLBC is assuming, that if
12
a requested award destabilizes the Amtrak pattern
13
agreement, that the financial consequences are
14
me-too pass through through the other unions that
15
have settled.
16
Now, we're going to present evidence on
17
this through D.J. Stadtler, our chief operating
18
officer, who used to be our chief financial officer.
19
That issue of the me-too pass-throughs
20
through the other unions amplifies the issues in
21
these cases.
22
$100 million issue during the term of this agreement
And the bottom line is this is over a
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
23
1
with carry forward implications into future years.
2
In Amtrak's view, that's not minimal,
3
that's not insignificant, that's not imperceptible.
4
That's financial and material.
5
considered as one of many reasons why this Board
6
should not even entertain breaking the pattern.
7
And it should be
PRLBC has an additional argument for
8
breaking the pattern.
They look at the UTU
9
Conductor Agreement, and they basically argued that
10
that agreement already broke the pattern by
11
providing a conductor performance bonus, and that
12
that means the economic terms are not uniform.
13
And in Mr. Roth's report, he monetizes the
14
UTU conductor bonus as the equivalent of a 2 percent
15
increase.
16
PRLBC argues that, Well, given that
17
monetization, and the me-too clauses, the Amtrak
18
pattern is already gone.
19
Well, we'll present the facts about the
20
UTU conductor bonus.
21
will be Charlie Woodcock's testimony.
22
But let me just -- and that
Let me just note a few things.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
24
1
The UTU actually negotiated three
2
agreements on Amtrak, conductors, yardmasters, and
3
stewards.
4
Now, you would assume when they negotiated
5
that, if they knew that this should be monetized,
6
they would have monetized it with the other two
7
unions, the yardmasters and stewards.
8
do so.
9
They didn't
The fact that UTU is now with the sheet
10
metal workers and SMART, they have a me-too clause
11
as well.
12
the UTU bonus as a GWI for the sheet metal workers.
13
The sheet metal workers didn't monetize
In fact, no union has filed a grievance
14
under a me-too clause since the April 2013 UTU
15
Conductor Agreement.
16
We sitting here in January 2014.
17
Presumably, this issue would be litigated if it were
18
going to be.
19
It hasn't.
But we think a lot of this is premised on
20
the PRLBC either misunderstanding or
21
mischaracterizing the UTU conductor bonus.
22
It's not an award for showing up for work.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
25
1
It requires certification, attendance, and working
2
at a higher level position.
3
There were carefully negotiated tradeoffs,
4
which Charlie Woodcock will talk about, that reflect
5
the fact we were cognizant of the me-toos.
6
negotiated a conductor bonus provision that provides
7
economic savings and staffing to Amtrak.
And we
8
It is unlike the rules that you will see
9
on the freights or on the commuters, so there's no
10
basis in viewing this as monetizing.
11
work-rule-connected bonus.
12
It is a
Now, as you know, PEB No. 244 had very
13
similar monetizing argument just last month where
14
other unions were arguing that the UTU certification
15
pay on the Long Island Railroad should be monetized.
16
The GWI and PEB 244 rejected that.
17
There are even more reasons here to reject
18
that because of the different nature of the Amtrak
19
performance bonus than what you see on the computers
20
or the freights.
21 22
So the bottom line is that the PRLBC's argument that the UTU Conductor Agreement broke the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
26
1
pattern is just factually wrong.
2
The PRLBC goes on and makes an additional
3
argument about the pattern, and it's about the
4
historic relationship between Amtrak and the
5
freights.
6
It says:
"The notion that Amtrak's
7
claimed 'internal pattern' should trump the
8
historical linkage between the freight and Amtrak
9
agreements should be rejected."
10
Their brief at 12.
11
What they're really saying is that, as a
12
matter of precedent and right, Amtrak can't
13
establish an internal pattern.
14
They're not just arguing that the freight
15
deals should be given more weight, but that the
16
Amtrak internal pattern can't exist.
17
The tone of the argument is almost how
18
dare Amtrak and its other unions go ahead and
19
bargain first and set an internal pattern.
20
just not permitted.
21 22
That's
Well, there's no recognition that historically the relationship between the Amtrak and
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
27
1
the freights was based upon the freights bargaining
2
first in each round.
3
And in this round, Amtrak bargained first.
4
We did that cooperatively with our other unions, and
5
we did it almost by two years before the freights.
6
Again, we understand that BMWE and BRS
7
aren't happy that Amtrak bargained first, aren't
8
happy with the deals the other unions made.
9
But Amtrak did it.
Could do it.
10
do it.
11
of the majority of the labor organizations
12
representing the Amtrak employees.
13
They did
And it did it because it had the cooperation
So that's the reality of the Amtrak
14
internal pattern that must be considered by this
15
Board in undertaking its deliberations.
16
That begs a question, why is the PRLBC so
17
intent on denying the existence of the Amtrak
18
internal pattern?
19
Well, we think that reason is clear.
20
Because the implications for finding a strong Amtrak
21
internal pattern are clear.
22
Presidential Emergency Boards and the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
28
1
interest arbitrators who have addressed this issue
2
uniformly have held that a strong internal pattern
3
does trump an external pattern.
4
The internal pattern, in my language,
5
becomes the predominant reference point for
6
fashioning a settlement.
7 8 9
We think the PRLBC knows that.
We think
they have known that since 2010. And what they're doing is attempting to
10
deny the facts of Amtrak's internal pattern in order
11
to preserve an argument that the freight deals
12
should be given predominant weight.
13
But the record at the end of this hearing
14
will plainly establish what the facts are.
15
an internal Amtrak pattern.
16
labor relation principle, the Amtrak internal
17
pattern should be given controlling weight as the
18
reference point for fashioning a settlement.
19
There is
And as a matter of
And now, we'll turn to the issue of timing
20
because timing is very important in this case, and
21
it's important in three different ways.
22
First, the PRLBC pursued a delaying
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
29
1
strategy, which we'll talk about more in a moment,
2
that should be given equitable consideration.
3
Second, the delay between the period of
4
the Amtrak agreements and the period of the freight
5
settlements itself needs to result in limited weight
6
for the freight settlements.
7
And the third, through the delay the PRLBC
8
has pursued, they have actually limited the Board's
9
options in this proceeding.
10
Let me explain that more.
11
Charlie Woodcock will talk a lot about the
12
chronology of this bargaining round.
13
graphics, a timeline that will take you through it.
14
We will have
But the reality is we're sitting here on
15
January 6, 2014.
16
This round began January 1, 2010, over four years
17
ago.
18 19
We're at the end of the round.
The Amtrak pattern agreements expire in January 1, 2015.
That's less than a year.
20
A lot of time has passed.
21
Well, what the facts will conclusively
22
show is that the PRLBC is responsible for this
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
30
1
delay.
2
Not Amtrak.
3
Amtrak learned its lesson in PEB 242.
4
were criticized very expressly for the eight-year
5
delay.
We
6
And you're going to hear from both
7
Mr. Woodcock and Mr. Boardman on this issue.
8
pursued a deliberate strategy in this round to seek
9
early reasonable deals.
10
Amtrak
We sought and obtained those first deals
11
in 2010.
12
employees having voluntary collective bargaining
13
agreements in the first year.
14
We succeeded with over 50 percent of our
That's an extraordinary accomplishment
15
under the Railway Labor Act.
16
occasion where it has happened elsewhere, that
17
portion of the work force in that short of a time.
18
And it happened because Amtrak offered good deals in
19
what was then, as now, a difficult economic
20
environment.
21 22
I can't think of an
Another fact is the BMWE and the BRS were slower in bargaining.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
31
1
In early 2010, they were putting together
2
their joint coalition Section 6 notices when other
3
unions, the TCU, the IAM, the IBEW, and the JCC were
4
making deals with Amtrak.
5 6
We got our first tentative deals in April 2010 on a January 1, 2010 reopening.
7
PRLBC's response to those developments has
8
been to reject the internal pattern and pursue a
9
strategy delay.
10
And there's just no secret -- and you'll
11
see it in the record -- that the BMWE and the BRS
12
decided they weren't going to make a deal until the
13
freight deals arrived.
14
We'll provide detail on this, but from
15
December 2010 to February 2012, there were no
16
discussions.
17
deals.
18
PRLBC was waiting for the freight
You'll see a chronology we'll present on
19
this, and there will be big white spaces in the
20
middle, big white spaces where nothing was happening
21
in 2011 because the PRLBC was waiting.
22
And they don't deny this.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
32
1
If you look at their brief, they say that
2
the parties made no progress in 2010 because they
3
were, "hampered by the fact that agreements between
4
the Freights and the Organizations had not yet been
5
settled."
6
That's in their brief at 6. Well, Amtrak wasn't hampered in reaching
7
agreements with its other unions, the Amtrak pattern
8
agreements.
9
bargain until the freight deals were completed.
10 11
It's the PRLBC.
They were unwilling to
And now, they have spent basically four years opposing an Amtrak internal pattern.
12
And they say in their brief:
"Why should
13
the Organizations before this Board...be penalized
14
for standing on principle..."
15
brief.
16
Page 13 of their
The principle they're talking about is the
17
linkage between Amtrak and the freights.
18
they mean by standing on principle is not
19
bargaining.
20
And what
There were no freight deals in 2011 in
21
which to compare, in 2010, or 2011 in which to
22
compare.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
33
1
So what standing on principle has meant is
2
that there have been no wage increases for the BMWE
3
employees for four years because their unions were
4
unwilling to make a deal.
5
The real question the Board has to ask
6
itself is not about the BMWE and the BRS being
7
penalized.
8
rewarded for pursuing a strategy of delay and
9
intransigence?
10
Why should the BMWE and the BRS be
Amtrak was chastised for delay in PEB 242.
11
We were held responsible of an eight-year delay.
12
The PEB opined about employees not getting increases
13
during that period and how bad a thing it was.
14
Well, if delay was a bad thing in 242, how
15
can it possibly be a good thing when looking at this
16
round and this proceeding?
17
Delay should be a negative factor in
18
assessing this dispute, and the responsibility for
19
the delay lies with the PRLBC.
20
So in your deliberations, we're going to
21
be asking the Board to give due weight to that
22
delay.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
34
1
And that delay is significant because we
2
wouldn't even be talking about freight deals as a
3
reference point if that hadn't occurred as a result
4
of the delay or the result of not reaching
5
agreement, which gets me to the point about giving
6
limited weight to the freight deals.
7
We have this gap, this period of time from
8
the first Amtrak internal pattern deals in April
9
2010 to the first -- the BMWE freight deal and the
10
BRS freight deals in early 2012.
11
Our position is yes, the Amtrak internal
12
deals trump those freight deals and external pattern
13
because they weren't around.
14
You're not comparing concurrent internal
15
and external agreements.
16
just ignores this.
17
case is just, Let's look at these two reference
18
points and what's the most appropriate.
19
PRLBC's argument really
They want you to think that this
Well, you have to ask yourself, How did we
20
get here?
21
pursued a strategy of delay.
22
And the answer is because the Union
What's the implications of that?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
35
1
Retroactivity is a big issue in PEB 242.
2
Again, Amtrak was criticized by not putting
3
retroactivity on the table.
4 5 6
This round, we said, Okay; up front, these deals are going to be retroactive. Well, in doing so, Amtrak bore some risk,
7
more risk of what the ultimate outcome would be in
8
having to applying it retroactively.
9
That risk becomes amplified if you say a
10
later, richer external pattern has to be applied
11
retroactively, the risk of retroactivity has been
12
unfairly amplified for Amtrak.
13
And, again, that rewards the unions for a
14
strategy of delay.
15
comparison but for the strategy of delay.
16
And you wouldn't even have this
So there are really two reasons why you
17
should minimize the freight deals.
18
come almost two years later.
19
reason we got there is because the Union was not
20
bargaining.
21 22
One, they just
And two, the only
I mentioned the timing constraints on this Board for fashioning an alternative settlement.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
36
1
Back in 2010, again, three and a half
2
years ago now, Amtrak suggested to the PRLBC, Well,
3
if you don't like the internal pattern agreements,
4
let's talk about healthcare, work rule, offsets that
5
can generate additional GWIs.
6 7
And that's something we'll talk about more in this proceeding.
8 9 10
The PRLBC's delay has constrained that approach. Again, we have less than a year left.
11
That means you have less of a period to develop and
12
implement cost saving offsets.
13
The GWIs can be applied retroactively.
14
The only other factor that can be applied
15
retroactively are healthcare costs premium
16
contribution.
17
offsets to the back pay, the retro pay.
18
other plan change can't be applied retroactively.
19 20 21 22
You can apply those retroactively as But any
Any work rule changes can't be applied retroactively. So by playing out the clock, the PRLBC really has limited the alteratives before this Board
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
37
1
for developing offsets that could generate more
2
GWIs.
3
And that is another reason why, at the end
4
of the day, the Amtrak position that the Amtrak
5
internal pattern is the appropriate award should be
6
given greater weight.
7
So overall, when you look at the facts
8
relating to pattern, the strength of the Amtrak
9
internal pattern, and these timing issues, you come
10
back that the Amtrak internal pattern is the
11
appropriate award in this case.
12
But I want to talk about opportunity.
13
As I said in the beginning, this Board's
14
job is to fashion settlement.
15
everything I have said about the Amtrak internal
16
pattern is the appropriate award, there is an
17
opportunity here for the Board to fashion some form
18
of an alternative.
19
And notwithstanding
We, for example, put on the table our July
20
17, 2013 proposal.
It basically adopted the
21
healthcare plan changes under the freight deal,
22
Amtrak's pattern contribution for 1 percent more of
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
38
1
GWIs in 2014.
2 3
That was an effort to generate more income through work rule changes.
4
Actually, the UTU Conductor Agreement is
5
another example of generating more money through
6
associated work rule changes for which we get
7
criticized.
8
with the PRLBC.
9
It's the same approach we suggested
Now, there is this timing problem that we
10
have less than a year to work with under this
11
duration for this agreement.
12 13
But there still is the possibility of making some tradeoffs there to fashion an agreement.
14
What's the PRLBC's position on this?
15
"The PRLBC has no interest in making and
16
refuses to make this choice."
17
at 4.
18
In fact, they go further.
19
Amtrak of pursuing:
20
Section 1113 approach."
21 22
It's in their brief
They accuse
"A Bankruptcy Code 11 USC
Well, that's inaccurate, unfair, and just plain counterproductive rhetoric.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
39
1
We are not in a Section 1113 bankruptcy.
2
Amtrak is not attempting to reduce its overall labor
3
costs.
4
increase our labor costs.
5
other unions to increase our labor costs, and 84
6
percent of our employees agreed to that.
7 8 9
Amtrak has put money on the table to We made deals with our
So to say that this is an 1113 process, or an analogy, just doesn't belong in this discussion. What we believe is that when you go to the
10
bargaining table and you discuss both parties'
11
interests and needs and you make tradeoffs, that's
12
called good faith collective bargaining, not a
13
Section 1113.
14
PRLBC makes reference to good faith
15
collective bargaining in its brief in referring to
16
the freight deals.
17 18 19
What about good faith arm's length collective bargaining with Amtrak? Amtrak has done that successfully with 13
20
of our 15 unions.
21
responded positively.
22
Thirteen of our 15 unions We have the deals to show it.
But in four years, the BMWE and the BRS
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
40
1
have made no proposal other than take the freight
2
deal with the BMWE, put it on the table and say,
3
That's the deal.
4
Well, not really because we want lower healthcare
5
contribution rates.
6
And then turn around and say,
When Amtrak said, Let's come up with some
7
ways to fund additional GWIs alternatives, we didn't
8
get any counterproposal with PRLBC.
9
These organizations, unfortunately, have
10
shown no interest in actually bargaining with Amtrak
11
because it requires tradeoff.
12
Now, this Board because we're in interest
13
arbitration does have the authority to develop and
14
make tradeoffs as part of its award if it's
15
convinced that's the best approach for the parties.
16
If not, you don't do it.
17
What are the possible tradeoffs?
18
We talked about healthcare.
We're in a
19
national environment of controlling healthcare
20
costs, as has been reflected in the table.
21
243 and 244 dealt with healthcare changes.
22
Both PEB
PEB 244 actually cites 243, cites other
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
41
1
settlements, including Amtrak's, and says there's
2
really this trend of greater employee cost sharing
3
to address healthcare costs.
4 5
Clearly Amtrak has an interest in controlling its healthcare costs.
6 7
We're willing to share those savings through increased GWIs.
8 9
We'll be presenting testimony of Thomas Rand, our healthcare expert.
And we'll explore what
10
opportunities they were offered modifications in the
11
AmPlan that could generate cost savings and generate
12
funds for additional GWIs.
13
The point in presenting this testimony is
14
not saying that this Board must address healthcare.
15
We're not saying that at all.
16
We're saying that we're providing
17
information, and the Board can decide whether to use
18
it or not.
19
Let me address work rules.
20
The PRLBC has expressed very adamant
21
refusal to consider work rule changes, including use
22
of work rules to fund additional GWIs.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
42
1
They object even to the Amtrak pattern
2
payroll deduction and minor discipline process
3
changes.
4
other Amtrak unions.
Those have been non-controversial with our
5
The PRLBC accuses us of racism.
6
It's the same thing in bargaining and
7
mediation.
8
BMWE and BRS to discuss work rules.
9 10 11
It has just been a plain refusal by the
Same thing last round, no bargaining over work rules with this group for over 14 years. Now, we don't know why the BMWE and BRS
12
take that approach.
13
it's internal union politics.
14
practical as a collective bargaining approach
15
because what they're doing is they're refusing in
16
collective bargaining to hear Amtrak's interests.
17
That really denies the existence of the
18
other parties' interests in bargaining, and those
19
interests are not going away.
20
you're not going to talk about it just doesn't make
21
the problem go away.
22
Perhaps it's ideology.
Perhaps
But it's simply not
And just saying
Why is Amtrak interested in modifying its
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
43
1
work rules?
2
You'll hear from Bruce Pohlot, our chief
3
engineer.
4
for the BMWE and BRS on the Northeast Corridor.
5
Our current environment is a lot of work
Both crafts have grown substantially since
6
2007 and PEB No. 242.
7
particularly interested in officially utilizing our
8
manpower resources.
9
And that makes us
We have a lot of skilled people who have
10
been trained, highly trained and are not performing
11
the functions for which they were trained.
12
an interest in changing that.
We have
13
We have an interest in reducing make-work
14
that's not the most productive work these employees
15
can do.
16
We have an interest in contracting out
17
certain functions where it can be done more
18
efficiently.
19
But a lot of the underlying concern with
20
Amtrak is really increasing the return on the
21
training investment and reducing overtime.
22
The overtime issue is not a small issue.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
44
1
Amtrak has to report to Congress every Amtrak
2
employee who obtains more than $35,000 in overtime a
3
year.
And D.J. Stadtler will talk about that.
4
And you'll see the BMWE and the BRS are a
5
big portion of those folks, and they're pretty high
6
on the list.
7 8
That's a problem for Amtrak.
What the organizations need to recognize is it's a problem for them as well.
9
Amtrak is a publicly owned and funded
10
organization.
11
to the taxpayers that we're operating efficiently.
12
We do have an obligation to justify
Calling the federal government, "the
13
deepest pocket on earth," as the PRLBC does in its
14
brief at 13, might be self-assuring rhetoric for
15
these two organizations.
16
represent the political reality of funding for
17
Amtrak.
18
But it just does not
So the opportunity here is to address a
19
problem, which is Amtrak's problem, and we think
20
it's the Organization's problem.
21
tradeoffs that the organizations are going to get
22
value in increased GWIs, and that that could be a
That produces
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
45
1
productive way to go forward to address these issues
2
in ways that make good use of a difficult situation.
3
Amtrak recognizes the hesitancy of this
4
board, any PEB, any interest arbitrator, to get
5
involved in work rules.
6
No one likes to do it.
And we also recognize you're hearing an
7
admin position from the PRLBC.
8
why we have attempted to make our work rule
9
proposals as simple as possible.
10
That's the reason
On the craft-specific pattern work rules,
11
we have changing numbers, changing a 45-mile rule to
12
a 60-mile rule; changing a six-month block into a
13
12-month block, and that doesn't require a lot of
14
working with the details of work rule.
15 16
And with the other work rules trading for GWIs, we have tried to do the same thing.
17
This is an interest arbitration.
It's not
18
a PEB.
You have a little bit more time and
19
attention to address these issues.
20
line is there is an opportunity for tradeoff with
21
some reasonable modification in work rules that will
22
lead to greater GWIs.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
But the bottom
46
1
Amtrak's not saying you need to do that.
2
We're saying that is an approach that's
3
available to the Board if it concludes that that's
4
the best way to go.
5
Let me bring this to a conclusion.
6
Amtrak submits that the evidence at
7
hearing will prove a very strong Amtrak case for
8
imposition of the Amtrak internal pattern as the
9
terms for settlement with the BMWE and BRS.
10
We have compelling factual reasons
11
relating to the uniformity, the nature, the
12
pervasiveness of the Amtrak pattern.
13
equitable reasons concerning PRLBC's delay while
14
waiting for the freights.
15
relations reasons and principles of supporting
16
internal patterns.
We have the
And we have the labor
17
All of those, when the entire case is in,
18
will support finding the Amtrak internal pattern is
19
the way to go for settlement.
20
So the Board can issue an Amtrak internal
21
pattern award.
You'll have more than sufficient
22
basis in the record.
And that would then leave the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
47
1
parties to resolve their longer term differences
2
concerning wages, healthcare, and work rules in the
3
next round, which begins in a matter of months not
4
years.
5
I mean, we're talking about if it's an
6
agreement that end on 1/1/2015, we're in bargaining
7
almost immediately.
8 9
But Amtrak recognizes, and we hope the BMWE and the BRS recognizes, that this type of
10
zero-sum result may not be in the best interests of
11
the parties.
12
That's the reason Amtrak is prepared and
13
interested in working with the Board and the
14
organizations to develop alternative solutions,
15
alternative solutions that will provide higher GWIs
16
on the Amtrak pattern with reasonable tradeoffs in
17
the areas of healthcare and work rules, and any
18
other creative solution the Organization or the
19
Board might come up with.
20
This is not an easy task.
21
Fortunately, we think we have a board with
22
both the experience and expertise to attempt to
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
48
1
achieve that delicate task, and we're committed on
2
Amtrak's part to provide the Board with the
3
information it needs so that you can do your job and
4
fashion an appropriate and constructive settlement.
5 6 7
With that, I thank the Board members for their time and attention.
I thank the PRLBC.
And we look forward to working with both
8
the Board and the Organization to get this record
9
complete and move on to a resolution.
10
Thank you.
11
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
12
Would you like a few moments or do you
13 14 15
Thank you, Mr. Reinert.
wish to begin? MR. WILDER:
I would like to secure a
glass of water.
16
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
17
We're off the record.
18
(A recess was taken.)
19
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
20
MR. WILDER:
21
Members of the Board.
22
That's fine.
Back on the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
This is an interest arbitration convened
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
49
1
under Sections 7 and 8 of the Railway Labor Act by
2
agreement of the parties, which, as the chairman
3
noted, was concluded on September 6 of 2013.
4
This proceeding is designed to settle
5
disputes that were initiated by Section 6 notices
6
served by the engineering crafts on December 1,
7
2009, January 1, 2010, and by their representative,
8
the Passenger Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition on
9
February 25 -- I'm sorry, April 7, of 2010.
10
As such, this proceeding is in lieu of a
11
PEB.
Like a PEB case, of course, the parties have
12
already said too much about too many things,
13
whereas, they have said the same thing in too many
14
different ways.
15
The fact is that this case is much easier
16
than the blizzard of words in the parties' filings
17
would suggest.
18 19
Let me describe several facts which are not, I think, open to dispute.
20
At Amtrak, the current economic picture is
21
bright.
Ridership is at record levels again in
22
2013, marking the 11th record since 2000.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
50
1
This increased ridership, of course, has
2
driven revenue.
3
check largely by compressing labor costs increases.
4
Overall, expenses have been held in
As a result, Amtrak's recovery rate, which
5
is measured by its commercial revenue as a percent
6
of total operating expense, stands at 87.6 percent,
7
better than any other passenger railroad.
8 9
Think for a moment.
Amtrak represents a
public effort to assure continued rail service to
10
the passenger wanting to travel other than by car or
11
by air.
12
It has a definite public mission. Yet, Amtrak alone of the passenger
13
carriers finds most of its operating expense, the
14
vast majority, at the turnstile.
15
This is unique.
16
It also is a factor of employee
17
productivity.
18
productivity has risen steeply.
19
Over the past decade, employee
Combined with moderate labor cost
20
increases, this increased productivity has caused
21
Amtrak's unit labor costs to remain virtually flat
22
over the past decade.
And when you adjust for
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
51
1
inflation, Amtrak's unit labor costs show almost a
2
20 percent reduction.
3
Now, these figures are not conjured out of
4
thin air.
5
they will be testified to by our labor economist,
6
Thomas R. Roth, when he testifies next week.
7
They are part of the public record, and
These favorable economic results mirror
8
those on the freight railroads and tend to
9
explain -- and this is important -- tend to explain
10
why there has been little or no dispute over work
11
rules over the past decade in the railroad industry.
12
That is, for the past several rounds on
13
the freights and at Amtrak, there has been very
14
little controversy over work rule change.
15
The reason for that is that the sharply
16
rising productivity has meant that these disputes,
17
previously common in the rail industry, have taken a
18
distinctly second tier to the economic disputes
19
involving wages and benefits.
20 21 22
That is where the modern rail dispute is, and that is where this dispute is. Now, the second fact is that the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
52
1
differences in the parties' economic positions are
2
quite narrow.
3
Mr. Roth calculates that difference in
4
cumulative costs over a five-year period ending on
5
January 1, 2015, at $8.7 million.
6
Putting that in percentage terms, the
7
annual rate of increase under the PRLBC's position
8
is 1.2 percent per year.
9
the annual rate of increase is 1.07 percent per
10
year.
Under Amtrak's position,
That's a difference of .13 percent.
11
Now, what is this dispute all about?
12
The economic differences are narrow.
The
13
parties have made credible proposals to one another.
14
The Amtrak has put forward what it describes as an
15
internal pattern.
16
forward the national freight pattern.
17
The organizations have put
And the differences between applying one
18
pattern or the another is really quite narrow, as we
19
pointed out.
20
Now, the -- Mr. Reinert, in his opening,
21
described as indisputable the fact that an internal
22
pattern exists on Amtrak.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
53
1
We acknowledge that the pattern that was
2
developed in 2010, the so-called internal pattern,
3
does have that critical mass that is referred to by
4
PEBs and interest arbitrators.
5
But remember, that so-called internal
6
pattern is the first internal pattern that even
7
Amtrak has ever put forward in collective bargaining
8
since its inception in the mid 1970s.
9
This is a first-time event.
10
We submit that it is the obligation, not
11
just of the Board, but of the parties, to assure
12
that this so-called internal pattern evidences the
13
kind of stability that will make it a credible
14
pattern for this round and future rounds at Amtrak.
15
The problem with this so-called internal
16
pattern, and one that is utterly disregarded by
17
Amtrak, is that wage patterns must be based upon job
18
comparability if, in fact, they are to have that
19
kind of stability that causes them to endure in
20
collective bargaining.
21 22
In the rail industry, comparable jobs are found only on the passenger carriers operated by the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
54
1
states' so-called commuter rail carriers, or on the
2
freight carriers.
3
Amtrak early on rejected out of hand the
4
notion that the computer rail carriers could furnish
5
appropriate comparators.
6
rejected again, despite 30 years of bargaining
7
experience, the notion that the freight carriers
8
would furnish an appropriate comparator to judge the
9
reasonableness of its wage and benefit proposal.
10
And then later, it
Instead, Amtrak -- and I thought that I
11
would try to avoid casting blame, much like my
12
colleague did in his opening statement, but Amtrak
13
tried for a fait accompli.
14 15
There's really no other good words for what Amtrak has done in this round.
16
It has tried as part of this fait accompli
17
to establish an internal pattern that is based on a
18
new untested standard of comparability that will
19
place Amtrak employees at the bottom of the rail
20
industry.
21 22
What we are facing, if this internal pattern is developed, if this indeed was a fait
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
55
1
accompli, is a structured rail industry with the
2
passenger carriers on the top.
3
Island Railroad, Metro North, and the other
4
passenger carries in the Northeast Corridor.
5
And I speak of Long
In the middle will be the freight
6
carriers, which, since 1975, have furnished the
7
appropriate comparator for Amtrak employees.
8
the bottom of rail industry, there will be Amtrak
9
employees.
10 11
That's what we're looking at.
And at
That's the
reality of this case.
12
And I urge the Board to keep that simple
13
and indisputable fact in mind when we hear more
14
about Amtrak's alleged internal pattern.
15 16
The fact is that this so-called internal pattern is based on nothing.
17
Wage studies like the one conducted by
18
Dr. Gillula have been repeatedly rejected by PEBs
19
because it's recognized that railroad jobs are
20
unique.
21
are in the commuter rail industry and the freight
22
industry and on Amtrak.
And the only place we find railroad jobs
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
56
1
So what is this internal pattern based on?
2
Like any untested internal pattern, we're
3
dealing with so-called internal comparability.
4
Carrier is asking the Board to determine that the
5
jobs of clerks and of shopcraft employees furnish an
6
appropriate comparator for determining what the
7
wages of engineering crafts will be.
8 9 10 11
The
You just have to accept that because this pattern emerged out of Amtrak's mind and the intentions of its new management in early 2010. The instability of this pattern was
12
demonstrated, we believe, the first time that it
13
came to be put forward to the operating crafts.
14
Now, there has been much criticism of the
15
shopcrafts for waiting -- excuse me, much criticism
16
of the engineering crafts for waiting until the
17
freight agreement was completed.
18
That unreasonableness, that almost bad
19
faith, in the words of my colleague, Mr. Reinert,
20
followed 35 years of experience.
21 22
Yes, in every other round on Amtrak, the parties have waited until the freight agreement was
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
57
1
completed before engaging in the kinds of bargaining
2
that has led to an agreement.
3
We are told again, by way of opening
4
statement, that our choice to wait for the freight
5
agreement consistent with 35 years of bargaining
6
history is equatable to what Amtrak did last time,
7
which was to wait for two rounds to pass and then
8
take the position before Board 243 that there would
9
be retroactivity.
10
Now, I will leave it to you to determine
11
whether or not those events are equatable or not.
12
Certainly, we say not.
13
What happened with the UTU?
UTU did not
14
settle until April of 2013, or just about one year
15
after the freight agreement was completed.
16
And the question on that bargaining was
17
how would Amtrak's internal pattern fare?
18
to the task?
Was it stable?
Was it up
Would it work?
19
And the answer was it a resounding no.
20
The UTU deal, as the evidence will show,
21
vividly demonstrated that the April 13 UTU
22
settlement, which contained provisions for
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
58
1
additional annual compensation of $1,250 per
2
conductor, was not up to the task, that the internal
3
pattern at that point showed that it was unstable.
4
You heard during Mr. Roth's opening
5
statement -- Mr. Reinert's opening statement that
6
our witness, Thomas Roth, has calculated the UTU
7
additional compensation to be worth approximately a
8
2 percent general wage increase.
9
Now, we will wait for Mr. Roth's testimony
10
to explain in detail.
11
no place in opening statement.
12
That kind of explanation has
It suffices to know that that 2 percent
13
more than bridges the gap between the parties' wage
14
proposals in this case.
15
were additional compensation made available by
16
Amtrak in the four years of bargaining, we would not
17
be here.
18
In other words, if there
If we were treated as UTU was treated in
19
terms of a very loose and unstable internal pattern,
20
there would have been a settlement, just like UTU.
21
Now, Amtrak took a much different course
22
with respect to the engineering crafts than it did
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
59
1 2
with the operating crafts. I understand from the opening statement
3
that we will hear how the additional $1,250 in
4
additional compensation for a conductor actually
5
helped Amtrak and reduced its costs.
6
What of the operating crafts?
7
Well, you heard that in the Company's
8
opening statement.
9
engineering crafts in terms of training rules and in
10 11 12 13
They needed something from the
terms of the so-called 45-mile rule. Now, did they provide financial incentive as they did for the conductors?
No.
What they want from us is a work rule
14
change that will enable Amtrak to compel signalmen
15
to journey within a radius of 60 miles from their
16
headquarters instead of 45.
17
They want from the maintenance-of-way
18
employees a training lock-in of a year that will
19
have the same effect which will enable the Company
20
to force assign employees throughout the system.
21 22
Nothing about additional compensation in order to achieve these goals that, of course, we
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
60
1
were not the UTU.
2
It is worth noting that the two rule
3
changes I have mentioned have been cited by Amtrak
4
as the price for agreeing with the engineering
5
crafts on an internal pattern.
6
We are not talking about additional
7
compensation to obtain those work rule changes.
8
Those work rule changes are the price for the
9
engineering -- the engineering crafts obtaining the
10
internal pattern.
11
Now, what is the difference between those
12
changes and the kinds of changes that were asked of
13
other organizations?
14
Well, there are two big differences.
15
One is, those changes are punitive.
The
16
second is, they were not asked for by the
17
engineering crafts as were many of the changes cited
18
by Amtrak as an effort to support its internal
19
pattern.
20 21 22
Why were the engineering crafts treated differently? Now, you can't have an internal pattern, a
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
61
1
credible, stable internal pattern, and treat
2
different -- treat different organizations
3
differently in terms of wages.
4
I mean, wages is the one thing that should
5
be uniform at least in terms of the wage increase if
6
you have a credible pattern.
7
happened here.
8 9 10
So that's a major difference, and it's one that has been causing the parties to remain apart from the outset in early 2010.
11 12
That's not what
This is not something new.
It's not part
of the smorgasbord.
13
Let me deal with that issue very briefly.
14
From 2010 until July of this year, excuse
15
me, July of 2013, Amtrak has taken the position that
16
if you want more wages, then you have to pay for
17
them by work rule changes.
18
It has offered a so-called smorgasbord of
19
work rule changes that are assigned arbitrary
20
values.
21 22
Amtrak did not make a proposal from 2010 until July of 2013 that we will add additional
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
62
1
wages, 1 percent, 2 percent, what have you, in
2
return for X, Y, and Z work rule changes.
3
never done.
4
That was
We were offered a smorgasbord, and we
5
could pick whatever we wanted so long as it amounted
6
to closing the gap, whatever the gap was, because
7
that -- Amtrak would not tell us at that point.
8
Now, what happened in July of 2013?
9
Amtrak made a definite proposal that the
10
Company would agree, effective January 1, 2014, to
11
add an additional 1 percent to the engineering craft
12
wage package in return for changes in the AmPlan,
13
not the changes in the AmPlan which they
14
euphemistically describe kind of like or on the
15
order of the changes that were made in the National
16
Freight Agreement.
17
What those changes were in reality, far
18
deeper and more drastic than the changes that were
19
decided by Board 243.
20
Now, having mentioned that, let me remind
21
the chairman, who was also the chairman of 243, that
22
the healthcare issue was exhaustively examined
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
63
1
during that PEB with the help of recognized experts
2
in the healthcare field representing both the
3
organizations and the carriers.
4
Public law -- Presidential Board 243
5
struck what it believed was an appropriate balance
6
between the containment of healthcare cost inflation
7
and the healthcare needs of the sick, disabled, and
8
elderly.
9
The organizations vigorously opposed the
10
kinds of planned design changes that were ultimately
11
decided upon by Presidential Board 243.
12
We agreed to accept them at Amtrak only
13
because they became part of a national pattern under
14
which the vast majority of maintenance of way
15
employees and signalmen work in the country.
16 17 18
They became part of the deal of railroad employment. But we cannot accept more onerous plan
19
design changes that Amtrak insists upon for an
20
additional 1 percent in compensation.
21
There is no part of that bargaining that
22
is fair to our members and to their beneficiaries.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
64
1
Equally, we have not been interested in
2
giving away work rule protection, fundamental job
3
protections that have been gained over decades of
4
bargaining in order to achieve the relatively small
5
amount of additional wages that is at issue in this
6
proceeding.
7
One final word.
8
If we're talking about an internal
9
pattern, and it is a pattern that differs in terms
10
of wages, benefits, and rules, it is not much of a
11
pattern.
12
It does not have that degree of stability
13
that bodes well for stable labor relations on Amtrak
14
in the future.
15
And I think that in conclusion, I would
16
like to find one thing that Mr. Reinert said that I
17
can agree with to show the cooperative spirit.
18
And that is, I quite agree that we have
19
with us the arbitration Board that can make the
20
kinds of decisions that are made.
21
Thank you.
22
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Thank you, Mr. Wilder.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
65
1 2 3
Off the record. (A lunch recess was taken.) MR. REINERT:
Before I start with
4
Mr. Woodcock, before I actually call him, I want to
5
explain a little bit about the process in this case
6
and how we're going to try to expedite things even
7
though this is going to be lengthy testimony.
8 9 10 11
One of the things the parties did very successfully in terms of prehearing procedural issues is deal with exhibits. And Joint Exhibits 12 to 54 are basically
12
all the bargaining exchanges, table exchanges.
13
Amtrak's Exhibits 202 to 255 are basically documents
14
that relate to the Amtrak pattern agreement.
15
And
Rather than go through the rigmarole of
16
offering individual exhibits -- I know they have
17
been admitted -- Mr. Woodcock and other witnesses
18
are going to talk with the assistance of PowerPoint
19
presentations.
20
We haven't put all the exhibit numbers on
21
the PowerPoint presentation.
As we go through, my
22
intent, I will just refer to the slides that
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
66
1
underlie the material.
But the witness is not going
2
to be talking about specific exhibits other than in
3
a handful of circumstances.
4
So the reality is we have hundreds of
5
documents related to this bargaining round, and
6
there's going to be specific reference in calling up
7
maybe five of them in the process.
8
It's just an easier way to do business.
9
And I don't think -- I think it will move
10
along a little bit more smoothly.
11
MR. WILDER:
Just so I understand, what
12
we're going -- and I'm holding testimony of Charles
13
Woodcock.
14
MR. REINERT:
15
MR. WILDER:
16
MR. REINERT:
17
MR. WILDER:
18
January 2014. Correct. And if I understand what
you're saying, we are going to see the PowerPoint --
19 20
Right.
MR. REINERT:
We're going to present it,
yes.
21
MR. WILDER:
22
MR. REINERT:
On the slide. Yes.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
67
1 2 3 4
MR. WILDER:
annotate these as we go on. MR. REINERT:
Right.
MR. WILDER:
6
MR. REINERT:
All right. And I'll be asking questions
of Mr. Woodcock.
8
ARBITRATOR DAS:
9
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
10 11 12 13
ARBITRATOR DAS:
MR. REINERT:
Yes. Because I would like to
Why don't we take a moment
to pull those out? ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
15
MR. REINERT:
16
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
17
Right on top.
19
Is that in here?
get the PowerPoint document.
14
18
Just verbally, I'll
say the backup for this slide or these exhibits.
5
7
And then you are going to
It's up on the screen.
Yeah.
It's Exhibit 200.
Yep.
There it is.
(A discussion was held off the record.) MR. REINERT:
And I should also say Amtrak
20
Exhibit 256 is set up as a poster and also has been
21
handed out as a foldout.
22
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Right.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
And let me ask
68
1
a question.
2
amended one that we got over the weekend, or is that
3
the original one?
4 5
I'm have no trouble either way.
I just
didn't know.
6 7
The copy that's in here, is that the
MS. WHITE: is that.
What you got on Friday evening
It has not been amended since then.
8
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
9
MR. REINERT:
Okay.
That's fine.
This is the most current.
10
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
11
Okay.
Friday evening, I count as the
Okay.
Fair enough.
12
weekend.
13 14 15
I knew we had gotten a revised Exhibit 200. (A discussion was held off the record.)
16 17
That's what I meant.
MR. REINERT:
Okay.
Are we all on the
same page?
18
Then I'm ready to call Charles Woodcock.
19
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
20
Did you want witnesses sworn in?
21
MR. REINERT:
22
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
That's fine.
Sure. Would you stand,
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
69
1
please.
2 3
Raise your right hand. (Witness sworn by the arbitrator.)
Thereupon,
4
CHARLES WOODCOCK
5
Called for examination by counsel for the
6
Carrier, having been duly sworn, was examined and
7
testified as follows:
8 9 10
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. REINERT: Q
11 12 13
Mr. Woodcock, good afternoon. Could you please state your full name?
A
Good afternoon to the Board and members of
the BMWE and the BRS in the audience.
14
My name is Charles Edwin Woodcock III.
15
Q
And what is your current position?
16
A
My current position is the head of labor
17
relations.
18
I'm the leader, Corporate Labor Relations
19
in Washington heading up our labor relations
20
function across the system.
21 22
Q
And in preparation for your testimony
today, did you prepare a PowerPoint that has been
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
70
1
distributed to the Board and opposing counsel?
2
A
Yes, sir, I did.
3
Q
Okay.
Let's turn to the second page and
4
just could you explain briefly your background and
5
career with Amtrak?
6 7
A
Yes, I have been with Amtrak since June of
1975.
8
And all during that time, I have held
9
positions in the human capital area, specializing in
10
labor relations full time since 1978 in a variety of
11
field and corporate labor relations positions.
12 13 14
Q
And in the current round of collective
bargaining, what has been your role? A
I have been the chief spokesman in this
15
round of bargaining when I attained the position of
16
Leader, Corporation Labor Relations in January 2010.
17 18 19
Q
And in the last round, which led to PEB
242, what role did you have in bargaining? A
I held a coordinating role amongst all the
20
chairs and also directly chaired the Shop Craft
21
negotiations.
22
Q
This round, have you been at the table
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
71
1
with the PRLBC?
2
A
Yes, I have.
3
Q
All sessions?
4
A
Yes.
5
Q
And in mediation?
6
A
In mediation, yes, same.
7
Q
I'll just reference Amtrak Exhibit 201 as
8
Mr. Woodcock's bio.
9
Turn to the next slide.
10 11 12 13 14
Can you just give us an overview of what you're going to talk to the Board about today? A
Yes.
I have several components I want to
review with the Board. First is the general overview of our Union
15
environment.
16
this round, very different than in the past.
17
The second will be our approach to
I want to describe the Amtrak settlements
18
we have reached to date with our unions, briefly
19
talk about the freight settlements, but more
20
specifically the PRLBC negotiations.
21 22
And then finally, what we have done to reach deals with the PRLBC.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
72
1
Q
2 3 4
Okay.
Let's turn to Amtrak's work force.
Just give us an overview of what the organizations and numbers look like. A
The overview of our organizations is we
5
have 15 labor organizations representing around
6
17,000 almost 300 workers.
7
Thirteen of the 15 labor unions have
8
reached settlements with us, which resulted in about
9
84 percent of our work force covered by the Amtrak
10 11
pattern deals. Q
In counting labor organizations, it gets a
12
little complicated, I know, and you can give more
13
detail in a moment.
14 15
But for example, both the BMWED and the BLET are Teamster-affiliated organization.
16 17
Are they counted as one union or two unions for purposes of counting 15?
18
A
They are two.
19
Q
Okay.
20 21 22
Thank you.
Let's discuss the unions that are in this interest arbitration. What portion of Amtrak's work force is in
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
73
1 2 3
this proceeding? A percent.
4 5
In this proceeding is approximately 16
As you can see on the PowerPoint slide, there's two units, two unions in this group.
6
One is the Brotherhood of Maintenance of
7
Way Employees, which represents employees
8
maintaining our Northeast Corridor infrastructure
9
track and structures.
10
The second group is the Brotherhood of
11
Railway Signalmen maintaining our signals and our
12
communications systems.
13
the Northeast Corridor.
14 15 16 17
And they're primarily in
And between these two unions, it's about 27 almost 2,800 workers. Q
When you look back to 2008, the headcount
appears smaller, 2,134.
18
What has been going on in these units
19
since 2008?
20
A
There has been a considerable amount of
21
work that has flowed from additional funding through
22
sources such as ARRA funding, capital funding that
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
74
1
has required us to increase our work force on a --
2
principally on the Northeast Corridor.
3 4 5 6
Q
There is also off-corridor positions for
these units? A
Yes.
There are at about five or six key
locations.
7
Q
8
slide.
9
Okay.
Let's turn to the table in the next
And I'll just reference for the Board's
10
purposes Amtrak Exhibits 203, 4, 5 and 6 as the
11
source of the underlying information.
12
And I'm going to ask you, Mr. Woodcock,
13
just walk us through these labor organizations for
14
purposes of who the unions involved are and what
15
type of craft or class are we dealing with.
16
A
Right.
The Joint Council of Carmen, which
17
is the first one, represents coach cleaners and car
18
repairmen or car inspectors, you know, our
19
mechanical work force.
20 21 22
As you can see, there are about 1,800 workers in that bargaining unit. Q
And you have two unions representing those
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
75
1
folks?
2
A
Correct.
3
Q
Which unions?
4
A
Transport Workers Union and TCU union is
5
what that membership is.
6
Q
7
front.
8 9
And something I want to get clear up
When you bargain with the JCC, are representatives of both of those unions present?
10
A
Yes, they were, as a group.
11
Q
Okay.
When you enter a collective
12
bargaining agreement, is it one or two collective
13
bargaining agreements?
14 15 16 17
A
It is one collective bargaining agreement
with this group. Q
With respect to the PRLBC, you have been
bargaining with them as a coalition.
18
Is there any expectation that you get a
19
single collective bargaining agreement out of those
20
negotiations?
21 22
A
There was not. We provided them two separate bargaining
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
76
1 2
documents. Q
So there's a difference between a council
3
that results in a single agreement and a coalition,
4
which will bargain together, but get multiple
5
agreements?
6
A
Yes, sir.
7
Q
Okay.
8
walk us down the list.
9 10
Turning down to the TCU -- just
The TCU, what can you tell us about them? A
The TCU is the Transportation
11
Communications Union that represents clerical
12
workers ranging from station personnel, reservations
13
personnel, back office personnel.
14
3,500 in that bargaining unit.
And, again, about
15
Q
What is ASWC?
16
A
ASWC is the second of our two councils,
17
the Amtrak Service Workers Council that represents
18
the onboard workers such as chefs, food specialists,
19
train attendants.
20 21 22
Q
And who are the constituent members in
terms of the labor organizations? A
Three unions.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
77
1 2 3 4
They are Transportation Workers Union again, the TCU again, and also UNITED-HERE. Q
And, again, they produce one collective
bargaining agreement?
5
A
Yes, sir.
6
Q
Next group on the list?
7
A
The American Train Dispatchers
8
Association.
9
That is a Union that controls the
10
right-of-way of train movements.
11
distribution of our overhead power system in the
12
Northeast Corridor located in a couple of centers.
13 14
And also the
And, again, a very small union, but about 186 workers at this count.
15
Q
What is ARASA MW?
16
A
ARASA MW is one of our three supervisory
17 18 19
unions. It's American Railway Airway Supervisors Association.
20
This particular one is the supervisory
21
union that represents workers in the engineering
22
department with the other PRLBC unions.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
78
1 2
Q
So they would be the folks who supervise
the BMWED and the BRS?
3
A
Yes, sir.
4
Q
Okay.
5
A
IAM is the International Association of
Tell us about the IAM.
6
Machinists, and they represent most of the workers
7
in the engine area of our mechanical department.
8 9 10
However, they do represent some employees in stations and on the right-of-way in the engineering department.
11
Q
ARASA OBS.
12
A
ARASA OBS is our on-board supervisor's
13
union, second of the two.
14
And -- excuse me, the third.
15
And they represent the supervisors in the
16
crew bases and also that travel the trains
17
supervising the on-board crews.
18
Q
Let's turn to the IBEW and explain.
19
A
The IBEW is the International Brotherhood
20
of Electrical Workers representing electricians and
21
other similar categories, mostly in the mechanical
22
department, but also in the engineering department
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
79
1 2
in the Northeast Corridor and elsewhere. Q
And did Amtrak reach agreements with each
3
of the unions on slide 6 according to the dates
4
indicating?
5
A
Yes.
6
Q
Are those tentative agreement dates or
7
ratified effective dates?
8
A
Those were ratified effective dates.
9
Q
And the employee headcount, as of what
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
date is that? A
That headcount is as of November of this
past year. Q
And the wages that are indicated are from
what period? A
The wages are -- what we measure is our
fiscal year.
17
And our fiscal year runs from October 1 to
18
September 30, so these are real wages through
19
September 30, 2013.
20 21 22
Q
Turning to the next page, which continues
the chart, tell us about SMART-SM. A
SMART-SM is a former Sheet Metal Workers
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
80
1
International union.
2
And the group represents the pipefitters
3
and plumbers in the mechanical department as well as
4
in the engineering department.
5 6
Q
And they were represented by the PRLBC at
the beginning of this round?
7
A
Yes, they were.
8
Q
FOP, who are they?
9
A
FOP is the Fraternal Order of Police
10
representing police officers throughout the country,
11
mostly in the Northeast Corridor, and about 460
12
employees there.
13
Q
NCFO?
14
A
National Conference of Firemen and Oilers.
15
It represents utility workers, stationary
16
engineers, and similar functions, mostly in the
17
mechanical department, but also in the engineering
18
department.
19 20
And they also were part of the PRLBC at one time.
21
Q
IBBB?
22
A
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
81
1
and Blacksmiths is a unit that represents heavy
2
metal workers and welders in our back shops.
3
And about, as you see, 50 employees in
4
that unit, a former -- also with the PRLBC at one
5
time.
6
Q
BLET.
7
A
BLET is the Brotherhood of Locomotive
8
Engineers and Trainmen.
9 10 11 12
And they represent the locomotive engineers on Amtrak nationwide. Q
As you indicated earlier, they are a
Teamster affiliate?
13
A
Yes.
14
Q
You have got three SMART-Trans UTU groups.
15 16
Can you just walk us through those? A
17
Right.
They're freight.
The largest is the conductors, which is
18
the first one.
They represent assistant conductors
19
and conductors throughout the system on both yard
20
trains and our passenger trains.
21
Q
You have got stewards?
22
A
The second is the UTU dining car stewards
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
82
1
that represents one steward on the system working
2
out of New York.
3
Q
And the yardmasters?
4
A
And the yardmasters is a final group that
5
represents about 33 workers, and they supervise the
6
yard operations, train movements and yard operations
7
primarily with the UTU.
8 9 10
Q
And all these groups on the chart have
agreements ratified and effective as of the dates indicated?
11
A
Yes.
12
Q
Okay.
13 14
Let's turn to the next topic.
You're familiar with the Presidential Emergency Board 242?
15
A
16
Yes, sir. MR. REINERT:
And that, for the Board's
17
information, I think you have it as Joint Exhibit
18
57.
19
BY MR. REINERT:
20
Q
Can you just walk us through your
21
understanding of what occurred in the last round
22
that led to PEB 242?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
83
1
A
2 3
Yes. The last round ran from 2000 to 2007 when
we finally moved forward to a PEB.
4
And during that round, we had negotiations
5
with all our unions, but had reached settlements
6
with about 35 percent of those workers through the
7
first five years.
8
the ARASA, OBS, the TCU, and the ASWC.
9
And those are the units you see,
The majority of the unions we failed to
10
reach agreement with or in some cases the agreement
11
failed ratification.
12 13 14
Q
What happened in PEB 242, in your
understanding? A
242 issued a decision which essentially
15
awarded the unions the -- a different wage package
16
and Amtrak's benefit package, but it also sent I
17
think some critical lessons, at least for Amtrak, in
18
what we should look to in our future rounds of
19
bargaining.
20
Q
How so?
21
A
Well, specifically, I think we took --
22
were taken to task on such things as delaying the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
84
1
negotiations overall through that time period.
2 3
Secondly, there were issues of, Is 35 percent enough of a critical mass to form a pattern?
4
And then last but not least, they did, in
5
this case, given the fact there was no pattern,
6
recommend the freight wage and, as I said, also the
7
Amtrak medical package.
8 9 10 11
Q
And what had been Amtrak's position on
retroactivity in the last round? A
We had not wanted to pay that at all.
That was our position.
12
Q
And did the PEB 242 react to that?
13
A
Yes.
14
Among other things, that was another
15
lesson learned, I think, in terms of our position
16
which is that was not a reasonable position in this
17
case.
18
Q
Okay.
The next slide, just what were the
19
lessons coming away that you view Amtrak as having
20
obtained through 242?
21 22
A
Well, the first one, as you can see on the
PowerPoint, is don't delay bargaining and make every
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
85
1
effort you can to move forward.
2
Secondly, you need a critical mass, 35
3
percent of those particular unions not having an
4
operating craft, among others, was not felt to be
5
sufficient to be the governing pattern in the PEB
6
242 proceeding.
7 8
Thirdly, don't use the retroactive pay as a bargaining stick.
9
Q
In what way?
10
A
Withholding it.
11
Withholding it.
Don't pursue unnecessary issues.
There
12
were a lot of issues on that table, and we were
13
questioned about that.
14
And then last but not least, I think it
15
goes to the tenor of the tone and the overall
16
position that the Company takes, which is bargain in
17
good faith and show your efforts at the table.
18 19 20
Q
How did these lessons from PEB 242
influence Amtrak management in this round? A
Well, when I became chief negotiator in
21
January 2010, I had the opportunity to spend some
22
time with our senior manager, in particular, Joe
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
86
1
Boardman, our CEO.
2
And in preparation for this round, we had
3
some very frank discussions about what we wanted to
4
see occur.
5
And part of that was we wanted to change
6
the overall bargaining dynamic, which was very
7
important to senior management and Mr. Boardman
8
because he felt -- and his vision at the time was we
9
need to focus on ridership, revenue, customer
10
service, and safety as our priorities during these
11
first few years of his leadership.
12
And that we need to get the labor
13
agreements in this current round out of the way and
14
frankly not be a drag on everyone's attention,
15
including the unions, as it had been in the prior
16
round.
17
So among other things, the guidance and
18
the decision was to bargain early.
19
delay, seek out those groups that were willing to
20
bargain, and proceed, and also put proposals on the
21
table that were limited in scope.
22
No reason to
And in this case, we had a proposal that
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
87
1
involved very good wages at the time in the economic
2
recession, of roughly 3 percent a year, a little
3
under that.
4
Limited healthcare.
We didn't want to get
5
embroiled in a series of very difficult decisions
6
around healthcare.
7
And limited work rules.
8
And that was our approach.
9 10 11 12
And we sought
to reach these agreements within this paradigm with our unions at the time. Q
Was it your job to implement that
strategy?
13
A
Yes, sir.
14
Q
And proceeding into 2010, how did you do
15 16 17
that? A
I ended up talking to a lot of unions. And early on, several of them approached
18
me about wanting to, again, likewise not repeat the
19
last round.
20
And there was a willingness to proceed.
And indeed, we were able to do that with
21
our first tentative deals in April of 2010, which
22
involved about 40 percent of our workers at that
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
88
1
point.
2
Q
And which unions were they?
3
A
That was the IBEW, the IAM, the JCC, and
4
the TCU units.
5 6 7
And you can see that over on the board here, graphically, and what we have handed out. Q
In undertaking the bargaining in 2010, was
8
it Amtrak's intent to try to create a pattern in
9
this round?
10
A
11
Yes, it was. Once we had the sort of a beginning of a
12
critical mass, it became very clear that these were
13
settlements that the labor unions could work with us
14
on and negotiate around.
15 16 17
Q
And after 2010, did you continue to reach
agreements that were part of that pattern? A
18
Yes, we did. During the balance of the year, basically,
19
we reached an agreement with five bargaining units,
20
which by the end of the year took up to roughly 60
21
percent of the work force covered under deals.
22
Q
What happened in 2011?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
89
1
A
In 2011, we had three unions that were
2
part of the PRLBC approach us individually at
3
different times when they broke away from the PRLBC,
4
and we reached settlements with them, which brought
5
us to about 65 percent.
6 7
And at that point at the end of the year, in November of 2011, PEB 243 was issued.
8
Q
PEB 243 with reference to the freights.
9
A
Yes, sir.
10
Q
And after PEB 243, did you continue to
11 12
negotiate with Amtrak unions for pattern agreements? A
Yes, we did.
13
The BLET came in in January of 2012.
14
the UTU groups, the yardmasters, stewards, and
15
conductors came in in April 2013 with settlement.
16
Q
So after all these events, is it your view
17
that Amtrak did, in fact, establish an internal
18
pattern?
19 20 21 22
A
And
Yes.
With currently the 84 percent now
covered under these deals. Q
Let's turn to the next page and talk about
the elements of that Amtrak pattern.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
90
1 2 3
Can you explain the chart and the wage terms that are includes in the Amtrak pattern? A
Yes.
On the slide 12, which is shown on
4
the board and the handouts, the Amtrak patterns were
5
five-year, one-day deals with wage increases every
6
six months beginning in July 1 of 2010, and the last
7
one being January 1, 2015.
8 9
When you look at the total increase, it's 14.9 (sic).
10
When you compound it, it's 14.91.
Two other features in these pattern
11
settlements is a side letter with all of them at
12
this point, which is an acknowledgment that Amtrak
13
has the right to develop on top of these wages, an
14
incentive-based pay plan around such indicators as
15
customer service index, OTP, global type measures
16
that would enable the Company to incent its
17
workforce further as it strives to improve its
18
operation.
19
Q
Has that been implemented yet?
20
A
No, it has not.
21
Q
And also with respect to wages, in this
22
round, what was Amtrak's position on retroactivity?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
91
1
A
Retroactivity has always been on the table
2
for those that have settled later than the July 1,
3
2010 increase, and it is still on the table today as
4
we speak.
5
Q
Let's turn and talk about what the Amtrak
6
pattern agreements provide with respect to health
7
benefits.
8 9 10 11
Can you explain that? A
Yes, sir.
We sought two elements in our
negotiations with the unions. The first was to raise the emergency room
12
co-pay from $50 to $75, unless otherwise admitted,
13
in which case it would be waived.
14
That was really to address what I think
15
was pretty widely acknowledged when you look at
16
data, an excessive amount of reliance on emergency
17
room visits, which of course drive the costs up
18
exponentially for private plans such as ours.
19
Secondly, we preserved the formula from
20
the last round on Amtrak, which is a little bit
21
different than the freight in terms of the timing.
22
But we preserved three other additional
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
92
1
calculations beginning in 2011, 2012, and 2013, to
2
recalculate the 15 percent based on real-time data,
3
real-time costs, and we have recalculated that.
4
Even though there were caps, we were under
5
the caps in each of those years.
6
shown of the recalculation are on the slide.
7 8
Q
And the amounts
So under the cost sharing contribution,
the basic rule is 15 percent subject to caps?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
When do you calculate the 15 percent?
11
A
We calculate the 15 percent prior to each
12
July 1.
13
And it is based on the previous year's
14
calendar year, plan year, actual data and actual
15
costs that is shared with the Union leadership.
16
Q
So as of today, it's now $209.19?
17
A
Yes, sir.
18
Q
And that's based upon the actual
19 20 21 22
experience before July 1, 2013? A
That would be based on calendar year or
plan year 2012. Q
2012.
Okay.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
93
1
Now, the -- let's talk about timing for a
2
minute.
3
effective dates vary.
4
A
On emergency room co-pays, you say the Why do they vary?
They vary because as each union would
5
settle, we would be able to implement it.
6
no retroactive adjustment to recover that from the
7
employees in later agreements.
8 9 10
Q
There's
Now, with respect to retroactivity in pay,
you said that Amtrak did place on the table retro pay with each union; correct?
11
A
Yes, we did.
12
Q
And did you pay retro pay as a result of
13 14
when you entered the agreements? A
We did pay retro pay, except I believe for
15
maybe the first couple, there were very little, if
16
any, retro pay because they came in early.
17
Q
Okay.
What did you do with respect to the
18
cost sharing contribution on healthcare with
19
represent to retroactivity?
20
A
If there was retro pay, retroactive pay,
21
and it involved one of these periods that involved a
22
recalculation, then the difference between that
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
94
1
recalculation each year would be offset for each
2
month against the retroactive pay.
3
Q
So you mean both the general wage
4
increases and the cost sharing contribution
5
retroactive?
6
A
7 8 9
And it has been done that way in previous rounds. Q
10 11 12 13
Yes.
Okay.
Turn to the next page.
Just give an overview of the approach on work rules within the Amtrak pattern. A
Right. On work rules, we sought to identify those
14
rules that we thought would improve the bottom line
15
administrative operation, particularly in the area
16
of payroll, but also in the time management of our
17
employees and promote a more collaborative effort.
18
And that's what you see on this first
19
slide of 14, what we're calling administrative type
20
rules both in terms of payroll efficiency and
21
certain discipline rule modifications.
22
And then on top of that, most rules --
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
95
1
most units and agreements we had what we call
2
craft-specific rules that was part of the Amtrak
3
pattern, but they would of course vary by craft.
4 5
Q
Okay.
Let's focus, drill down a little
bit on the administrative work rules.
6
Can you explain what was provided within
7
the Amtrak pattern agreements with respect to
8
payroll efficiencies?
9 10
A
Yes. Where we did not already have either
11
bi-weekly pay or direct deposit, what we did is
12
implement a rule that would allow us to move to
13
bi-weekly pay.
14
And indeed, all our unions but the two
15
here today have been moved to bi-weekly pay along
16
with management.
17
The second piece was that we wanted to
18
have it be a mandatory direct deposit.
19
was designed to improve the efficiency of the
20
payroll operation.
21
efficiencies which were important to us.
22
All of this
And, again, the back office
And then lastly, as part of implementing
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
96
1
that back office function, rather than have multiple
2
payrolls running at different times, this now
3
standardized for payroll purposes a payroll work
4
week of Monday 12:01 a.m. through Sunday, so that we
5
now have a standardized run of each payroll each
6
week.
7 8
Q
So does that also cover all unions that
are in the Amtrak pattern?
9
A
Yes.
10
Q
Some of these unions had these provisions
11
before this round?
12
A
Correct.
13
Q
Okay.
14
modifications.
15 16 17 18
Let's talk about the discipline
First, what was done within the pattern on alcohol and drug waivers? A
There were two items. First of all, the first one as you can see
19
on the slide, and it is contained in our proposals,
20
is that where there were employees on what we call
21
drug and alcohol waivers -- and in our proposals, we
22
have a sample waiver form that's pretty standard --
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
97
1
but where we had employees that were already under
2
waiver conditions, including and understanding they
3
could be dismissed if they violate the waiver, what
4
we sought to do is eliminate the first level
5
investigation that's done.
6
It's an administrative proceeding usually
7
done with local chairmen, district chairmen, as well
8
as first level line officers.
9
right to Labor Relations so that the waiver can be
And elevate that
10
implemented, and the person can be dismissed if they
11
violate it.
12
But that that appeal would now accelerate
13
through the system right to Labor Relations, where
14
we would have to develop the proof, develop the
15
record primarily in the form of a drug litigation
16
package, and then hear any particular appeal
17
contentions and form the record there.
18
Q
Why did Amtrak want that change?
19
A
Basically, because the people at the lower
20
level not only are ill equipped to deal with 75-,
21
80-page, 100-page drug litigation packages, and we
22
rarely get to the questions that need to be asked.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
98
1
But frankly, arbitrators consistently have
2
upheld the dismissal of folks who violate their what
3
we call Rule G or drug and alcohol waivers.
4
most of time that involves testing positive for a
5
drug event.
6
Q
7
10 11
There were other changes with respect to
the notice of intent to impose a discipline meeting.
8 9
And
What is that about? A
Yes.
This is an item we wished to
standardize across all the crafts where we could. This was first started in the 1988 round
12
of bargaining with a couple of our unions and has
13
proven to be immensely successful.
14
What this is, is before you proceed in
15
cases of less than dismissal where you are going to
16
proceed with potentially discipline, before you
17
proceed in a formal investigation, it requires the
18
parties to come in and talk about the misconduct.
19
It's an informal procedure, and the hope
20
and the intent is that the parties can reach a
21
resolution around that misconduct, how it will be
22
dealt with, what the circumstances might be, et
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
99
1
cetera.
2
It's an informal process, and it has
3
proven to be very successful without any issues with
4
the crafts we have.
5 6
Q
Are there some crafts that don't gave this
provision under the Amtrak internal pattern?
7
A
Yes, there are.
8
Q
And which crafts are they?
9
A
Well, the operating crafts are the ones
10
that don't.
11
Q
And why is that?
12
A
Because we tried to pursue in negotiations
13 14
whether we could implement this. But because of, among other things, the
15
Conductor and Engineer Review Board requirements
16
with the FRA -- and we also consult with the FRA --
17
it was felt within the time the parties had that we
18
would not be able to implement that with the
19
operating crafts that really work together very
20
clearly in operating areas.
21 22
And would require a federal -- a record for the federal boards to review.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
100
1 2
Q
So that's a federal requirement for a
formal record?
3
A
Yes.
In most of those, yes.
4
Q
You made reference to the Amtrak
5
craft-specific work rules, and I want to take some
6
time to walk through these so that the Board
7
understands what they're about.
8 9 10
And I should say that while these are in all the agreements, there's also a summary table that's Amtrak Exhibit 248.
11
But let's discuss those craft-specific
12
rules.
13
work rules changes come about?
14
A
How did the whole idea of craft-specific
When we began our round and had our
15
various chief line officers, one of whom was Bruce
16
Pohlot and his predecessor Frank Vacca, you will
17
hear from next week.
18
We met with the department and tried to
19
find those items that we felt we could address
20
certain issues that were problems for our line or
21
operations departments.
22
So we did not have a broad targeting, as I
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
101
1
said early on.
2
limited scope, but things that needed to be worked
3
on on the surface.
4
identify those types of rules.
5 6 7
Q
We wanted limited proposals of
And that's how we proceeded to
And what was Amtrak's goal in pursuing
this at the table? A
Our goal was to negotiate with these
8
unions over these areas that were important to our
9
line officers and try and reach agreement in ways
10
that would correct or help us manage those areas.
11 12 13
Q
Can you just walk us through some of the
things you achieved with the Shop Crafts? A
14
Sure.
Sure.
The first one is we kept what's called
15
bank time, bank or compensatory time.
16
a critical, critical rule.
17
And this was
The previous rounds, we had negotiated the
18
comp time, but it did not have a cap.
19
I think the people felt that it would not be used
20
that much.
21 22
But it was just the opposite. a considerable amount of time.
And frankly,
It was used
And so what the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
102
1
parties ended up doing here is putting caps on that
2
as to how much could be taken each year, and that
3
was critical to our mechanical department.
4
Q
What about the work week?
5
A
The work week allowed us to implement
6
4-by-10 work weeks in the areas of production and
7
lifecycle maintenance and periodic maintenance in
8
our terminals.
9
4-by-10 days of -- as long as they had
10
Saturday, Sunday work weeks, but we were able to get
11
that for our mechanical department.
12
Q
Probationary periods?
13
A
Probationary period, what we did there, we
14
expanded the probationary period from roughly three
15
months to six months of active service.
16
And more importantly, we had an
17
understanding, and it's written in, that we could
18
utilize the employees during that six months on any
19
work at the particular shops, any shifts, any
20
locations.
21
management effort to develop a training program for
22
new hires, which is currently in place.
And it facilitated a joint labor
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
103
1 2 3
Q
What did you negotiate with respect to the
NCFO concerning rate of pay? A
4
Yes. The NCFO, I had a classification of
5
utility worker, which we agreed to lower the rate of
6
pay for new hires and extend the entry rate time
7
line from three to five years as a way to help us,
8
not only lower labor costs, but the NCFO saw it as
9
an opportunity maybe to have Amtrak hire more of its
10 11
utility workers. Q
Okay.
What was done with respect to the
12
sheet metal workers in the terms of the scope and
13
work classification?
14 15
A
The last one is a good example of a very
unique craft issue.
16
Unique in that the sheet metal workers
17
came to the table with something that was important
18
to them.
19
They had what's called an equity number.
20
It was a hard based number that would float up and
21
down, which, in return for relaxing their scope rule
22
back in the 1988 round of bargaining, we agreed to
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
104
1
actually maintain a certain level of those workers.
2
Again, subject to some changes in fluctuation and
3
operations and funding.
4
However, the sheet metal workers came to
5
us and indicated they would prefer to have a hard
6
core -- hard capped percentage of mechanics, a
7
relationship with other mechanics in the shops.
8
And we agreed to that.
9
And in return for that, they completely
10
waived their scope rule so that they now have a
11
relationship number.
12
flexibility with that craft to have other crafts do
13
their work.
14
Q
But Amtrak in turn got total
Let's turn to the operating crafts and ask
15
you to explain some of the items that were
16
negotiated there.
17 18
A
Yes. One of the common themes that you see
19
there is that early on, right around the time of
20
opening the round of bargaining, we had had a
21
situation where we had a competitor come in and try
22
to come in and take an operation from us, which they
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
105
1
did.
And they wanted to basically offer employment
2
to all of our workers having themselves zero
3
workers.
4
And what we said is this was an untenable
5
position for the Company to be in to invest in our
6
workforce.
7
So with our operating crafts, similar to
8
what we already had with our police, we had what we
9
call a repayment of training costs so that these
10
folks, should they leave the Company voluntarily,
11
within three years, they would owe us a cascading
12
amount of money during that three years to recoup,
13
for Amtrak to recoup those payment costs.
14
Q
Would did you --
15
A
Training, training and ancillary costs.
16
Q
What did you negotiate with the ATDA on --
17
A
ATDA, we extended the probation period
18
there to 120 days of compensated service from 60.
19
And that's important to give us an
20
opportunity to look at the train dispatchers and
21
their active duty.
22
Q
And in the probation rule on Smart C
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
106
1
(UTU)?
2
A
The promotion rule was one where the
3
UTU -- and we'll discuss that a little later.
4
UTU and Amtrak decided to modify the promotion rule
5
that accomplished, not only giving Amtrak
6
efficiencies, training investment recovery, and
7
lock-ins, but also -- also gave the UTU money that
8
they felt was important to their craft for the new
9
federal certification requirements that were put on
10
The
them in Federal Regulation 242.
11
Q
We'll talk about that some more later.
12
A
Yes.
13
Q
Okay.
Turning to the next page and
14
continuing to review the craft-specific work rules,
15
tell us what you negotiated with ASWC.
16 17 18
A
The ASWC is another example of the rule
that was helpful to both parties. There was a rule on how we compensated
19
folks for block training, those that had attended
20
annual block training.
21
earnings rather than just a flat eight hours.
22
And we agreed to pay their
But in return for that earnings, if we
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
107
1
pulled them from their job, that amount of time over
2
and above eight hours a day is credited towards
3
their guarantee, but not their overtime hours for
4
the end of the month.
5 6 7
Q
What about food specialist?
What did you
change there? A
8
Yes. We provided what I would call scope
9
classification flexibility in that we had a series
10
of food specialists furloughed at the time, and we
11
generally do each year.
12
In that category, these are employees that
13
work in the back -- in the back of the diner, not
14
the public section.
15
And this allows us the ability or the
16
incentive to recall food specialists because now
17
they can perform any work in the dining room.
18
that might include helping to wait on tables during
19
an overflow period on a heavy train, particularly,
20
say on a Friday night boarding, things like that.
21 22
Q
Explain what you changed on the
expungement of misconduct.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
So
108
1
A
2 3
Yes. The ASWC and the TCU had what I would call
an automatic expungement rule.
4
And prior to this time, with certain time
5
frames of good behavior, there were a series of
6
misconducts that could be expungeable that, again,
7
consistent with a new direction of focusing on
8
customer service and ridership, we found to be very
9
difficult to have that happen.
10
So instead of having just dismissals and
11
drug and alcohol waivers that formally couldn't be
12
expunged, we expanded that into a series of other
13
areas like theft, customer interactions and customer
14
misconduct, and what I would call anti -- violations
15
of our anti-harassment policy.
16 17
Q
part-time to full-time lock-in?
18 19
Turning to the TCU, what did you do on
A
That was an area that was specific to the
RSOs.
20
In the RSO, we have a considerable number
21
of part-time workers.
22
700.
I would say close to probably
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
109
1
And we had a situation there with the way
2
the rules worked where employees could actually
3
leave the RSO to take a full-time job out in the
4
stations or some other area, and then have the right
5
to come back into the RSOs as full time.
6
And this created problems, not only within
7
the cost structure of the RSOs when they returned;
8
but more importantly, it created problems with the
9
receiving department that was taking them on and
10
training them, principally in the stations area,
11
such as Los Angeles, where we have a major center.
12 13 14 15
And so this now requires the employees to stay there for up to one year and be locked in. Q
Okay.
You have already mentioned
misconduct expungement with respect to ASWC.
16
Same with the TCU?
17
A
Yes, sir.
18
Q
ARASA ME.
19
A
The last one there, a small supervisory
20 21 22
What did you negotiate?
union that we had. We had a sort of a related bank time or compensatory time problem in that their rule
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
110
1
required them, mandated that they bank the first 40
2
hours of their overtime.
3
And now, what we did is we made that
4
unmandatory so that now we actually have supervisors
5
who are on the job and not taking compensatory time.
6
Q
In your view, in these craft-specific work
7
rules that you have just discussed, do they provide
8
advantages to Amtrak?
9
A
Yes, they do.
10
Q
Now, are there any unions with whom -- or
11
within the Amtrak pattern that have not included
12
similar types of craft-specific work rules?
13
A
There are a couple of our smaller units
14
like the one-person dining car steward, the ASW --
15
excuse me, the ARASA MW, the ARASA OBS, those were
16
crafts that are supervisory unions.
17
much need for them.
We don't have
18
And then the FOP, which completely we
19
overhauled their agreement in 2007, a brand-new
20
collective bargaining agreement.
21
Q
And that overall accomplished what?
22
A
That particular overall accomplished
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
111
1
development for the first time in a true what I
2
would call police-oriented agreement with such
3
things as management rights, broad powers of the
4
chief, and rules that really were important to both
5
the police department, the police chief, and the
6
police union.
7 8
Q
Let's turn to timing and duration under
the Amtrak pattern agreements.
9 10
Can you just explain what the opening and duration provision of these agreements provide?
11
A
Yes, sir.
12
As I said earlier, and you can see on the
13
slide, these pattern agreements are five-year,
14
one-day agreements running from January 2010 through
15
January 1, 2015, inclusive.
16
There are ten general wage increases, 1 to
17
1.5.
And the last wage increase is on the last day
18
of the contract, January 1, 2015.
19
Health and welfare has an early reopener
20
on May 1, 2014, not to become effective before July
21
1, 2014.
22
And wages and work rules are open for
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
112
1
negotiation November 2, 2014, not to become
2
effective before January 2, 2015.
3 4 5
Q
Why is there an early reopener in health
and welfare? A
That was part of the bargaining we had
6
with the unions that, because we weren't seeking a
7
lot, we were worried, as are most employers today,
8
about what was happening in health care, not to
9
mention the ACA, the legislation.
10
And we desired to open up early to get a
11
jump on that issue depending what we were faced with
12
at that time.
13 14
Q
Let's discuss the me-too provisions that
have been referenced previously.
15
And I would reference Amtrak Exhibit 216,
16
page 11, I think is the first contractual language
17
of the JCC.
18 19 20 21 22
Can you explain to us how the me-too provisions in these agreements came about? A
Yes. After our first settlements -- and I had
made assurances at the table, as I believe most
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
113
1
negotiators do, but I had made assurances at the
2
table.
3
And one union in particular approached me
4
and asked me if, despite those early tentative
5
settlements during the voting, I would codify that
6
understanding, and I said I would.
7
And that has been reflected in the
8
language you see here, and that has been replicated
9
in each of our agreements that we have reached to
10
date.
11
Q
What was the purpose of these me-too
12
agreements?
13
A
The purpose of the me-too agreement was to
14
basically give those early unions that stepped out
15
and had a desire to reach settlements, to give them
16
a comfort level that, if, should there be additional
17
general wage increases and benefit changes, that
18
they would be able to also enjoy those, with the
19
exception if they were for work rules or other
20
productivity and other offsetting changes, again,
21
they would have that option also.
22
Q
Explain how that exception for work rule
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
114
1 2
offsets works in your understanding. A
Well, the way it would work, in my
3
understanding -- obviously I may have a difference
4
of opinion with the Union -- but the way it would
5
work and the way I intended it was that, should we
6
give improvements in the area of benefits and GWIs,
7
that I would approach the unions; they could
8
approach me, and then we would discuss that.
9
If it was simply that there were no
10
offsets, then there would be no offsets.
11
Amtrak strategy was that we said that, Should you
12
have any additional issues that you want of GWIs or
13
benefits, we would have expected an offset against
14
those one for one.
15
Q
But in the
There has been some discussion with
16
respect to the UTU conductor agreement and what
17
impact it has on the me-too clauses.
18 19
Has any union filed a grievance under the me-too clauses?
20
A
No.
21
Q
Let's turn to the next slide, and I will
22
reference Amtrak Exhibits 234, 238, and 239 if the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
115
1
Board wants to look at the agreement.
2
But explain to us what happened.
Did the
3
PRLBC coalition remain stable throughout this
4
bargaining round?
5
A
6
No, it did not. The original five unions of the coalition,
7
as you can see on the slide, boilermakers, firemen,
8
or other sheet metal workers, BMWED, here today, and
9
the BRS here today.
10 11
And indeed, common notices were formed, and they were served on Amtrak in April of 2010.
12
However, in 2011, each of these unions,
13
the sheet metal, NCFO, and boilermakers broke from
14
the coalition and approached us about reaching deals
15
very similar to the other Shop Crafts that had
16
already settled on Amtrak.
17
Q
And is there any reason you're aware of
18
that these unions broke away from the PRLBC
19
coalition?
20
A
I am not aware of any unions, what their
21
rationale might have been, and I wasn't privy to
22
that.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
116
1 2
Q
Did PRLBC do anything to prevent them from
breaking away?
3
A
Not that I know of.
4
Q
Let's turn to the next page and talk about
5
the UTU agreement, which is Amtrak Exhibit 245.
6 7
Did operating unions also join the Amtrak pattern?
8
A
Yes, they did.
9
Q
And which operating unions?
10
A
The two principal ones would the BLET and
11
the UTU, as I have already alluded to.
12
We have the dispatchers also in this
13
group.
14
Q
15 16 17 18 19 20
Tell us about the UTU conductor agreement
that was reached as part of the pattern. A
Well, we had been discussing with the UTU
the parameters of the deal for some time. And even after the freight deal, they were comfortable with the Amtrak pattern. However, one of the items that they had
21
asked us for was the equivalent of some form of
22
conductor certification pay, which they had received
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
117
1 2 3
on the freights and other property. Q
And in dealing with that response, were
you cognizant of the me-too clauses?
4
A
Yes, I was.
5
Q
And how did you deal with that?
6
A
Well, it was always in the back of our
7
mind that, if we were to offer additional money,
8
depending how it was structured, that we could be
9
subject to a me-too.
10
But we were fortunate in being able to
11
reach a solution with the UTU that did not trigger
12
what I would call either benefit improvements or
13
general wage increases on top of this.
14
Q
15 16
And how did you structure that agreement? Turn to the next slide.
A
Well, I think the best way to describe is
17
this that this is a product of difficult creative
18
negotiating in that it solved for us some critical
19
operating issues that were unique to us.
20
And also turned around to produce
21
potentially additional what I would call pay in the
22
form of lump sums, and I'll describe them in a
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
118
1
minute, for the workers in return for some of the
2
increased responsibility that they now bear under
3
the Federal Reg 242.
4
Q
Explain how the bonus works.
5
A
The bonus has two pieces.
6
First of all, it took our promotion -- and
7
we already had an existing promotion rule, and
8
worked on those issues that Amtrak had that we
9
needed to address with this particular rule and this
10 11
particular Union. Unlike some properties, we have both
12
assistant conductors and conductors.
13
given day, we have about 1,300 conductor's jobs that
14
are out there.
15
And on any
And unfortunately, through the way the
16
seniority system works, the assistant conductors do
17
not, even after training, have to hold conductor
18
positions and have to hold their qualifications.
19
And this creates additional staffing for us as well
20
as turnover and additional training costs and
21
filling vacancy costs.
22
So what we decided to do is take an amount
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
119
1
that would roughly equate to a little over $5 a day,
2
which the UTU had sought from us in a form of pay,
3
and that was what I would call translated into these
4
bonuses.
5
The first one is the $250 bonus that you
6
see here, and it's in the UTU deal, for further
7
examination.
8
What that does is several things.
9
First of all, you must, in order to get
10
the equivalent of this $250, maintain all of your
11
qualifications as well as certification under 242.
12
So now you have to maintain
13
qualifications.
14
characteristics.
15
negotiate, and you can see that.
16
You have to maintain your physical And that's in the rule that we can
But for the first time now, as a condition
17
of employment, in order for you to remain employed,
18
and under the promotion rule, after a year, you have
19
to take the promotion exam; you have to keep your
20
certification and qualifications up in order to get
21
that 250 as a condition of employment.
22
What that means is, even though you may
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
120
1
work as an assistant conductor, you now must
2
maintain that certification.
3
So this gives us a pool of qualified
4
physical characteristic, qualified and certified
5
employees we now would not have had except for this
6
rule.
7
That was the first part.
8
The second part, we then took that as a
9
preliminary you must have this before you can
10
advance to the next two bonuses, which were two $500
11
bonuses on the line.
12
And what those were designed to do is that
13
provided you not only held a conductor position the
14
whole measurement period of those six months, but
15
you actually rendered a certain amount of qualified
16
time, which was 120 days, except for 118 in certain
17
periods.
18
And that's in the rule. So it not only says you have to come to
19
work and fulfill that service, holding a conductor
20
position, but you have to commit a certain number of
21
times per year.
22
So in reality, although it looks like
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
121
1
everyone is going to get $1,250, the reality is it's
2
much less than that based on our estimates going in.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
But those are the essential elements of the rule. Q
And what advantages of staffing does
Amtrak get out of that? A
Well, it's several. First of all, we predict we're going to
have to hire less conductors overall because now
10
that we have this pool underneath that we can pull
11
and assign as needed assistant conductors going up
12
to conductor positions.
13
So we are estimating, I believe, the
14
number originally was maybe as many as 30 positions
15
we might not have to hire for.
16
Secondly, it now gives us the ability to
17
fill the actual assignments should a conductor mark
18
off and not be available.
19 20
This is critical, particularly at smaller crew bases.
21
A lot of people don't realize, we have
22
almost 70 crew bases around the country, some of
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
122
1
which have as few as seven conductors and assistant
2
conductors.
3
fill positions.
So it can be very challenging for us to
4
And then thirdly, it's going to reduce the
5
training need because, again, as people retain their
6
qualifications and that pool retains its
7
availability, it is going to enable us to fill those
8
jobs.
9
And then lastly, we think there's not only
10
going to be improvement in the attendance and in
11
less discipline, but also we'll have a spillover
12
effect that we'll be able to better crew our
13
training when we run short such as periods like
14
right now with inclement weather in the northwest,
15
one of our trains where we're cutting crews short.
16
So it gives us a lot of advantages.
17
Q
You negotiated other agreements with the
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
Which agreements were those?
21
A
The yardmasters and the stewards.
22
Q
Was there any monetizing the certification
18
UTU?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
123
1
pay from the UTU conductor agreement as GWIs in
2
those agreements?
3
A
4 5 6 7 8
No.
There was no monetizing of that.
They did not receive any additional compensation of any type. Q
Okay.
So overall, in your view, is there
an Amtrak internal pattern? A
9
Absolutely. We believe that it's irrefutable.
When
10
you have got 84 percent of your workers covered
11
under the same type deal, then you have got
12
basically a pattern.
13
Q
And in statements to employees and public
14
statements has Amtrak said it has an internal
15
pattern?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
Have the unions referred to this as an
18
internal pattern?
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
And in what context?
21
A
In some of their newsletters.
22
Yes, they have.
Also at the table, to be frank about it.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
124
1
Q
2 3
Okay.
Turn now to freight.
You're familiar with what has gone on in bargaining of the freights in this round?
4
A
Yes.
5
Q
In your position, do you keep track of
6 7
that. A
8 9 10 11
From a distance. We don't have as much of an interest to
know exactly what's going on, but certainly we are aware of it. Q
And you're familiar that the UTU is the
12
only union to reach a voluntary agreement on
13
freights this round before a PEB.
14
A
Yes.
15
Q
And you're familiar with PEB 243?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
The BMWE ultimately reached a deal with
18
the freights.
19 20 21 22
Was that brought to your attention? A
I was aware that they had reached a deal. And then it was brought to our attention
when we first met in 2012 with the BMWE and the BRS.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
125
1 2
Q
And have you had an opportunity to review
that agreement?
3
A
Yes.
4
Q
In your slide, there's a reference to the
5
BMWE and the BRS freight deals reached 18 months
6
after the Amtrak pattern set.
7 8 9
How are you counting there? A
Well, when you count from April forward,
or when we reached the tentatives, or again the
10
February date which was the BMWE tentative, or their
11
sign date of April, you're going to get in the 18
12
month ballpark, April of 2012 when they finally
13
signed.
14 15
Q deal.
16 17 18 19 20
Let's review the terms of the freight
What's your understanding of their wage settlements? A
The freight deals appear to have these
yearly increases, which are shown on page 25. And they have what I would call yearly
21
increases beginning each July.
They vary in amount.
22
Additionally -- and totals compounded about 20.1
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
126
1
percent.
2
Additionally, they have a 1 percent
3
straight-time earnings lump-sum payment what is for
4
the period of November 2010 through October 31,
5
2011.
6
And then last but not least, one other
7
unique feature is the last wage increase, which is
8
January 1, 2015, is what I would call a contingent
9
wage increase that, as long as the parties maintain
10
negotiations at the table and direct negotiations
11
that don't go external, it is understood you might
12
be able to negotiate that up or down.
13
But the fact of the matter is, if you go
14
external, there is some other way of solving the
15
dispute.
16
year for wages.
17 18 19 20 21 22
The way we read it, that becomes a sixth
So de facto, it's a sixth year for wages. Q
Okay.
With respect to health benefits,
what do freight deals provide? A
The freight deal appears to have
considerable plan design changes. Not only have they gone to the same Amtrak
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
127
1
$75 co-pay for emergency room, but they went further
2
in a series of what I would call design changes,
3
adjusting co-pays, pharmacy co-pays, certain
4
pharmacy benefit management rules.
5
center, convenient care co-pays were decreased.
6
Phased implementation of deductibles and
7
out-of-pocket maximum.
8
introduction of a 5 percent coinsurance feature with
9
caps in that deal.
10
Urgent care
And then also an
Additionally, they had a $200 cap, as we
11
read it, through 2015.
12
what I would call snap-up to potentially a $230
13
amount in that -- those deals.
14
Q
And then in 2016, there is a
And do you know when the health plan
15
design changes under the freight deals are
16
implemented?
17
A
18 19 20 21 22
They were phased based on a July '12. And then also some were phased into '13,
and some were phased into '14. Q
There are no work rule changes under the
freight deals? A
No.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
128
1
Q
Do you know how that came about?
2
A
Well, certainly if it's based on the PEB's
3
recommendations, they recommended that work rules be
4
dealt with locally, in essence.
5 6 7
And I think the parties followed that. Q
Had the carriers sought any work rule
changes?
8
A
Not that I know of.
9
Q
And let's turn to the timing duration of
10
the freight deals, which gets a little complicated,
11
but explain to me whether they're five-year or
12
six-year deals.
13 14 15
A
Well, they are very different than the
Amtrak deals. For other than wages, they are clearly
16
five-year deals.
For the last wage increase, the
17
way we read the side letter, the last wage increase
18
of 3 percent, January 1, 2015, will remain live for
19
negotiation as long as the parties retain the
20
negotiations at the table should they go to a third
21
party for a resolution, that de facto becomes the
22
sixth year of wages and that closes out that year.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
129
1 2
MR. REINERT:
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I think
this would be a good point to take a break.
3
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
4
Looking at five to ten, maybe 15.
5
MR. REINERT:
6
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
7
We're off the record.
8 9 10
Sounds fine.
Let's do ten. That's fine.
(A recess was taken.) BY MR. REINERT: Q
Let's change gears a little bit, and I'm
11
going to ask you some questions, and you'll provide
12
some explanation on the -- really the chronology of
13
the discussions with the PRLBC.
14
Some of this you have referenced already.
15
It's laid out in the chronology document, which I
16
have behind me.
17
What I really want to start in April 26,
18
2010, when you had a discussion with the PRLBC
19
concerning the ground rules for coalition
20
bargaining.
21 22
When you went to that meeting, did Amtrak already have agreements, tentative agreements in
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
130
1
place?
2
A
Yes, we did.
3
Q
And with which unions again?
4
A
We had them with the IAM, the JCC, IBWM
5
(phonetic), and TCU.
6
Q
And that represents what percent?
7
A
About 40 percent of our workforce at that
8 9
time. Q
So in the April 26 session, did you
10
identify to the PRLBC that you had these tentative
11
agreements in place?
12
A
Yes, I did.
13
Q
And what was the reaction?
14
A
I think it was somewhat surprised.
15 16 17
I'm not sure what they had known about it. Q
To your knowledge, did they know about the
tentative agreements before?
18
A
I'm not sure that did, as I remember it.
19
Q
Did the PRLBC communicate to its
20 21 22
membership concerning the new agreements? A
Well, yes, they did, in the newsletter
that was put out dated May 9.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
131
1
MR. REINERT:
And for the Board's
2
information, that's Amtrak Exhibit 249, but I'm not
3
going to focus on it right now.
4
BY MR. REINERT:
5 6 7 8
Q
When did you actually start bargaining
sessions with the PRLBC? A
Our first bargaining session was on May 14
of 2010.
9
Q
And what did that consist of?
10
A
That consisted of reviewing the combined
11
as well as the individual portions of the combined
12
Section 6 notices by the five unions party to the
13
coalition at that time.
14 15
Q
So at that time you did include the NCFO,
IBBB, and sheet metal workers?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
Now, turning to the next page, when was
18 19 20 21 22
the next bargaining session? A
The next bargaining session was June 4,
2010. Q
And what occurred in the June 4, 2010
bargaining session?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
132
1
A
During that session, we offered a
2
comprehensive proposal for settlement that was
3
patterned after the existing settlements that we had
4
reached that dealt with wage, medical, and certain
5
work rule items.
6
MR. REINERT:
And for the Board's
7
information, those are Joint Exhibits 14 and 15.
8
BY MR. REINERT:
9 10
Q
Did you explain the proposal to the PRLBC
representatives?
11
A
Yes, we did.
12
Q
And what was the reaction?
13
A
The reaction was that it was simply not
14
enough in terms of their desires, their goals,
15
didn't have enough economic value.
16
And then they also asked us a series
17
questions, which we agreed to provide answers to on
18
the work rules.
19
Q
When was your next bargaining session?
20
A
Next bargaining session was August 11,
21 22
2010. Q
And what occurred at that session?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
133
1
A
Well, during that session, we agreed to
2
provide additional work rule options that we felt
3
could provide an option to pay additional monies
4
over and above the Amtrak package, over and above
5
the baseline work rules that were common to most of
6
the crafts.
7
Q
And why were you doing that?
8
A
We were seeking a way to find a way to
9 10
reach settlement with these groups, and basically produce an agreement.
11 12 13
And as I said, continue to reach deals that would further both parties' interests. Q
And did Amtrak provide the PRLBC greater
14
information about the work rule proposals and
15
possibilities for savings?
16
A
17
Yes, we did. At that particular meeting, we handed out
18
a series of documents that were tailored to each
19
group, and I believe they are in the record today.
20
Q
21
through 22.
22
I believe those are Joint Exhibits 16
Did you continue during 2010 to discuss
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
134
1
Amtrak's work rule suggestions and potential savings
2
calculations?
3
A
4
Yes, we did. And also we made a series of informational
5
and proposals around healthcare.
And that was done
6
in December 15, 2010 that there was an exchange of
7
quite a lot of information both in response to PRLBC
8
questions, but also in our desire to find additional
9
options particularly in healthcare.
10
And that was done at the December 15, 2010
11
meeting that was attended by our consulting team Aon
12
Consulting.
13
Q
And was the information you exchanged with
14
the PRLBC focused on healthcare and work rules
15
generally?
16
A
Generally, yes.
17
Q
Okay.
Turning to Slide No. 32, did you
18
later learn that the BMWE had been communicating to
19
its membership in the December 2010 time frame?
20
A
Yes, we did.
21
Q
And what did you learn?
22
A
We learned of a December 6 letter, which
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
135
1
is identified on the slide there, communicating with
2
their members about various positions that they
3
were communicating on the negotiations and their
4
views of how the negotiations should proceed.
5 6 7
Q
And what was your interpretation of that
letter? A
Well, my interpretation first and foremost
8
was that they had decided to wait until there was a
9
freight deal.
10 11
I think that's pretty clear when you look at the latter in totality.
12
They also indicated it was essentially
13
dangerous to follow any kind of internal pattern,
14
and I think that influenced their decisions
15
throughout the rest of the negotiations.
16
And then last but not least, they
17
indicated that the Amtrak settlement in their mind
18
was inadequate to their needs.
19
MR. REINERT:
And for the Board's
20
purposes, the letter is Amtrak Exhibit 250.
21
BY MR. REINERT:
22
Q
Looking back over the course of
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
136
1
bargaining, how does the December 6, 2010 letter
2
relate to what you saw and heard in bargaining at
3
the table?
4
A
Well, I think particularly looking back on
5
it, after this time, but also before the time, but
6
clearly after this time, as I'll explain in a
7
minute, it was a decision basically not to bargain
8
with us.
9
Q
10 11 12
Let's turn to the next slide. Did the December 6 letter also refer to a
survey of the membership? A
Yes.
13
It surveyed their membership as to whether
14
they should continue to work at the table or whether
15
they should wait in essence for the freight deal.
16
Q
17 18 19
And I'll reference Amtrak Exhibit 251. What's your understanding of the outcome
of that survey? A
My understanding, based on the January 10,
20
2011 survey results, was that almost 86 percent of
21
respondents voted to make a decision about what to
22
do after the freight settlement.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
137
1 2
And roughly 15 percent voted to accept the Amtrak's pattern offer.
3
Q
So after that January 10, 2011, BMWE
4
communication concerning the member survey, what was
5
the next development in bargaining with the PRLBC?
6
A
Well, at that December meeting, we had set
7
a next bargaining date for I believe it was March
8
11.
9
And on March 7, I received a communication
10
from the PRLBC indicating they were postponing
11
the -- excuse me, the March 9, they were postponing
12
the March 9 session.
13 14 15 16
Q
After the PRLBC postponed the March 9
session, did you meet with them again in 2011? A
We did not meet with the PRLBC, the two
unions here today, at all.
17
Q
18
PRLBC?
19
A
What happened in 2011 with respect to the
In 2011, we got approached by three of the
20
other members of the PRLBC at different times, but
21
first was the sheet metal workers.
22
And we were able to reach a settlement
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
138
1
with the sheet metal workers as you can see on this
2
slide on April 19.
3 4
The firemen and oilers came in next and reached settlement with us on August 30.
5 6 7 8
And last, the boilermakers reached settlement with us on September 8 of 2011. Q
When did you next meet with the PRLBC
constituted now by the BMWE and the BRS?
9
A
We next met with them in February of 2012.
10
Q
Anything else happen in late November with
11 12 13
respect to negotiations? A
Well, as you can see on slide 35, the PEB
243 report came out November 5.
14
And then many unions, including the two
15
here today, reached deals, settlements.
16
reached a settlement on November 17.
17
ratified and signed on February 6.
18
And the BRS
It was
The BMWE reached tentative on February 2,
19
2012, and it was ratified and finalized on April 25,
20
2012.
21 22
Q
And how did it come about that Amtrak and
the PRLBC got back to the bargaining table?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
139
1
A
The PRLBC called us on January 26, and we
2
exchanged dates to find a common set of dates that
3
we would be able to meet.
4 5 6 7 8
And we were able to come up with February 13 of 2012, which was our next bargaining session. Q
What happened at the February 13
bargaining session? A
At the February 13 bargaining session
9
because of the length of time that had transpired,
10
Amtrak first desired to review what had transpired
11
up to that date, and reoffered the terms of our June
12
comprehensive proposal.
13
In addition to that, we offered as a way
14
to move negotiations forward what I would call an
15
interim deal, essentially taking care of the upfront
16
economics that were common.
17 18
Just happened to work out that they were the same through June 30, 2012.
19
Q
What was the same?
20
A
The general wage increases when you add
21 22
them up. Q
Between the freights and the Amtrak
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
140
1 2
pattern? A
3
Yes, yes. And it was a desire to continue to move
4
forward on general negotiations, recognizing a lot
5
of items were unsettled.
6
wages up through that point.
7 8 9 10 11
But it was settling the
And certain other items such as supplementals. Q
And how did the PRLBC react to that offer
for an interim settlement? A
They rejected it and indicated that they
12
had another option they wished to put on the table,
13
which at this point was before lunch.
14 15
And then we came back after breaking, and they did put another option on the table.
16
MR. REINERT:
So just for the Board's
17
reference, Joint Exhibit 25 and 26 are the interim
18
settlement documents.
19
BY MR. REINERT:
20 21 22
Q
Let's turn to after lunch on February 12
February 13, 2012. What occurred after lunch?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
141
1
A
The BMWE and the BRS came in and gave us
2
the BMWE tentative frank deal of February 2 and
3
indicated that they were prepared to sign that deal
4
right there today.
5
And that that should be the basis of the
6
settlement.
7
Q
8
Is it 27?
10
And page 9 of that exhibit.
A
It is the BMWE offer that was handed to
us.
14 15
It looks like the freight settlement if the numbers are correct.
16
Q
And looking at --
17
A
Tentative at that point.
18
Q
Okay.
19
says:
20
Contributions.
21
"(a)
22
And what is
Joint Exhibit 27, Mr. Woodcock?
12 13
I would like to just call up for a
moment what is Joint Exhibit 27, I believe.
9
11
Okay.
Looking at the bottom of page 9, it
"Section 1 - Monthly Employee Cost-Sharing
Effective January 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2011, the employee monthly cost-sharing
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
142
1
contribution shall be $200.00"
2
Do you see that?
3
A
Yes.
4
Q
And if you look over to paragraph B up to
5
10, it also has a $200 number as a cap.
6
Do you see that?
7
A
Yes, sir.
8
Q
Was it your understanding on February 13,
9
2012 that the PRLBC was proposing that the freight
10
employee cost-sharing contribution of $200 should be
11
a term of their proposal to Amtrak?
12
A
Well, it was at that time.
13
Q
Yeah.
14
What happened at the -- we can go back to the PowerPoint.
17 18 19 20 21 22
We'll talk about it later in
a minute.
15 16
Okay.
What happened at the close of the discussions on February 12 and 13, 2012? A
We jointly agreed to approach the
Mediation Board to invoke mediation services. It was a joint request that was issued to seek the help of the Mediation Board in our dispute.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
143
1
Q
And then did you, in fact, do that?
2
A
Yes, we did.
3
Q
When?
4
A
That was a joint application on March 13,
5 6
2012. Q
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Let's turn to the next slide. When did you begin your mediation
sessions? A
We began our mediation sessions with
Mediator James Mackenzie on June 5 and 6, 2012. Q
And what happened at those mediation
sessions? A
We reviewed each other's positions with
the mediator present.
15
And then the information that had been
16
exchanged, we shared with the parties and the
17
mediator, Mackenzie.
18
And at that point, he indicated his desire
19
to try to drill down into that information and make
20
sure that we were trying to do as much interest
21
based bargaining as possible.
22
Q
And during the course of the session, was
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
144
1 2
there a discussion of the PRLBC healthcare proposal? A
3
Yes, there was. Again, it was an overview at the time with
4
the mediator.
5
got into it in later sessions.
6 7 8 9
Q
And then we, of course, subsequently
And when did you hear the number 177.54
with respect to a PRLBC proposal? A
It was during, I believe, that June
meeting.
10
And it was indicated that that 200 number
11
that we saw earlier would not apply to Amtrak.
12
we would be frozen at the 177 number that we had
13
from the prior round.
14
Q
Was there any explanation as to why the
15
$200 number that had been in the document they
16
showed you on February 13, 2012 was now 177.54?
17 18 19 20 21 22
A
That
In their mind, they deemed the 177 to be
the equivalent of the 200. Q
What was the outcome of those discussions
with the mediator in June and July? A
Well, as I said, he challenged the parties
and asked Amtrak to open its books more.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
145
1
And we ultimately, in addition to sharing
2
information we had shared -- but ultimately it led
3
to a meeting with the PRLBC's labor economists, Tom
4
Roth, which, on July 31, we reviewed not only some
5
of the materials that we had handed out previously
6
on wages and health, but we had our Amtrak finance
7
people, Labor Relations people, and Aon Consulting
8
meet with the labor economist in Washington to
9
review all the information on those two areas.
10 11
Q
After the July 31 session, when was the
next meeting?
12
A
The next meeting was September 10.
13
Q
What occurred at the September 10 session?
14
A
Excuse me.
15
The next meeting was in November.
16
Q
Okay.
What happened in September?
17
A
But in September, the PRLBC had requested
18
a release from mediation less than six months and
19
three sessions later of mediation.
20 21
MR. REINERT:
For the Board's reference,
that's Joint Exhibit 40.
22
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
146
1
BY MR. REINERT:
2
Q
Amtrak respond to that?
3
A
Yes.
On October 10, we responded to it,
4
and we indicate that we remained willing and open to
5
negotiating a settlement.
6 7
MR. REINERT: BY MR. REINERT:
8 9
Q
Okay.
Let's talk about that November 16,
2012 mediation session.
10 11
And that's Joint Exhibit 41.
Can you just tell us what occurred at that session?
12
A
13
Yes. At that session, we provided updated
14
financial analysis of all our proposals including an
15
additional healthcare and wage package and gap
16
analysis, some of which we had been working to
17
provide in response to Mr. Mackensie's requests.
18 19
Q
from mediation?
20 21 22
What happened to the request for release
A
The NMB rejected the request on November
Q
Did the PRLBC or its members communicate
19.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
147
1
to individual members again that you're aware of
2
during 2012?
3
A
We became aware of a communication dated
4
December 4, 2012, that the -- was sent to the
5
members of these unions.
6
MR. REINERT:
For the Board's information,
7
that's Amtrak Exhibit 253.
8
BY MR. REINERT:
9 10 11
Q
What was your understanding of what the
PRLBC was telling its members? A
12
Well, there were several things. First was that in their view the freight
13
deal was controlled.
14
was their view of prior PEBs that that was the case.
15
And that that is what they were telling their
16
members.
17
That that was absolute.
It
The second thing was that, while they did
18
not feel the freight deal was a great deal, they
19
said it's better than the internal pattern that
20
Amtrak had and was espousing.
21
And last but not least, they asked their
22
members for assistance essentially in pressing the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
148
1
Amtrak management and government officials for
2
release so that they could move to the next stage.
3 4
Q
When did the parties next meet in
mediation?
5
A
March 27, 2013.
6
Q
And what occurred in that session?
7
A
Again, we provided additional medical
8
benefits and work rule options, wage increases, a
9
series of information in a rather thick package that
10
not only updated all of prior exchanged information,
11
but, again, was a packet that frankly would have
12
enabled the parties right there to have continued to
13
work diligently towards getting a deal.
14 15 16
Q
Did the PRLBC continue to seek NMB
release? A
Yes.
17
They had actually sought out that pressure
18
on Amtrak and urged Amtrak to also request a release
19
at that time in the roughly May and June time frame.
20 21 22
Q
You make a reference in your PowerPoint to
June 2013, "PRLBC uses corporate campaign tactics." What are you referring to?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
149
1
A
2
Yes. There were a series of both written
3
documentations as well as picketing of our Amtrak
4
Board Chairman's office and also one of our other
5
board members during this general time frame.
6
MR. REINERT:
7
Exhibit 254?
8
BY MR. REINERT:
Can we pull up Amtrak
9
Q
What is this?
10
A
This particular one is an entry in the
11
BMWE Penn Federation website that talks about the
12
picketing of Amtrak Board Chairman Anthony Coscia's
13
offices in New Jersey.
14 15
Q
Can you scroll up to the actual picket
sign, if you can?
16
Yeah.
It says:
"Anthony Coscia.
17
Chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors.
18
Buster."
19
Union
Now, at the time that signs with union
20
buster were on it, what portion of Amtrak's
21
employees were under new collective bargaining
22
agreements?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
150
1 2
A
percent, 72 percent.
3 4
We had I believe at that time, around 70
I would have to look at the chart for a moment.
5
Q
At that point, you would have --
6
A
That's right.
7 8 9 10
We would have had 84 percent at that point with the UTU deal having come in. Q
And you made reference that there was
another board member who was picketed?
11
A
Yes, Board member Bert DiClemente.
12
Q
And where was he picketed?
13
A
At his house.
14
Q
When was the next NMB mediation session --
15 16 17
we can go back to the PowerPoint -- scheduled? A
National -- excuse me, on June 7.
18 19
There was one scheduled for June 7 in the
They canceled a two-day session that was scheduled for the 11th and 12th of June.
20
Q
When did the next sessions occur?
21
A
The next sessions were July 16 and 17.
22
Q
Of 2013?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
151
1
A
2013.
2
Q
And who was present?
3
A
Present at that was the Chair, Linda
4
Puchala, Director of Mediation, Larry Gibbons, and
5
Mediator for our case, James Mackenzie.
6
Q
And what occurred during those sessions?
7
A
Well, we submitted a comprehensive set of
8
materials, again, all updated to facilitate trying
9
to reach an agreement.
10 11
And among other things, there was no interest in essentially reaching a deal.
12
In fact, we were somewhat surprised during
13
that time that it was indicated that the PRLBC had
14
not granted the authority to their labor economist
15
to look at work rules.
16
Q
How did that come about?
17
A
That came about in response to the second
18
day when we put on the table of -- an actual example
19
of what could occur with providing additional wages
20
in return for, in this case, healthcare changes that
21
would provide additional income to this particular
22
bargaining units.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
152
1
MR. REINERT:
And just for the Board's
2
reference, I think the document Mr. Woodcock was
3
referring to is Joint Exhibit 49 and Joint Exhibit
4
54.
5
BY MR. REINERT:
6
Q
In the discussions on July 16 and 17,
7
2013, was there any discussion of the UTU conductor
8
deal?
9
A
Not that I remember, no.
No.
10
Q
Prior to the discussion about work rules
11
and no authority to examine, had you been under the
12
impression that there was going to be a discussion
13
about the costing out of work rules?
14 15
A
Yes. Not only had we discussed that and offered
16
on various occasions to make that on the same plane
17
as wages and healthcare, which was jointly reviewed,
18
but also in the prior communication I referred to by
19
the BMWE and their members in December of 2010.
20
They indicated that their consultant was
21
indeed looking at our various work rule assumptions
22
and our proposals that were made on costing and
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
153
1
value.
2
Q
Did Amtrak ever receive an economic
3
analysis of its work rule suggestions from the
4
PRLBC?
5
A
No.
6
Q
Let's turn to the July 17, 2013 proposal.
7 8 9
No.
Can you just walk us through the proposal that Amtrak put on the table that day? A
The proposal built on our June 2010
10
proposal that we had made a comprehensive proposal
11
but it went further.
12
It provided for an additional 1 percent on
13
January 1, 2014, on top of the Amtrak proposal, in
14
return for adopting certain plan design changes from
15
the BMWE freight package, which the BMWE and BRS
16
indicated they would be willing to accept.
17
Q
18
rules?
19
A
20 21 22
And what did it do with respect to work
It didn't add any additional work rules,
but we had our baseline package still on the table. Q
And did the PRLBC respond to that
proposal?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
154
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
Did they make a counterproposal?
3
A
No.
4
Q
Did they suggest areas where they could
5
It was rejected.
make a counterproposal?
6
A
No.
7
Q
On July 16 and 17, did Amtrak raise other
8
possibilities that could be utilized to fund more in
9
terms of general wage increases?
10
A
Yes.
11
In our package, we offered some other
12
areas, particularly in the healthcare area that
13
would generate some significant cost savings to the
14
Company that could be passed on in general wage
15
increases.
16
Q
And for example, what areas?
17
A
Consumer driven health plan options.
18
We had some additional options there that
19
we provide compared to others from previous
20
discussions.
21 22
Q
What about the work rules areas? Did Amtrak identify areas within work
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
155
1
rules that could generate savings for general wage
2
increases?
3
A
We continued to want to talk about them,
4
but we did not offer additional increases -- excuse
5
me, additional options.
6
We talked conceptually around what we
7
would call compressed work weeks, which were maybe
8
3-by-12 days of work.
9
that if the BMWE and the BRS felt that that was an
But we would only work on
10
area they could work with us on since it would
11
require an extensive amount of modeling by our
12
engineering department how and where they could use
13
it and its value to the Company and the June.
14
Q
In the materials that Amtrak provided the
15
PRLBC on July 16 and 17, 2013, did it show specific
16
dollar amounts associated with these --
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
-- work rule changes?
19
MR. WILDER:
Excuse me.
Since the
20
question wasn't finished, I'm not sure what the
21
answer was.
22
MR. REINERT:
Okay.
I'll rephrase.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
156
1 2
BY MR. REINERT: Q
Did Amtrak identify specific dollar
3
savings related to the suggested work rule changes
4
in the Amtrak materials?
5
A
Yes, we did.
6
Q
And did the PRLBC say those costings were
7
inaccurate?
8
A
No.
9
Q
Did they provide any alternative
10
documents?
11
A
No.
12
Q
Okay.
Let's turn to your view overall,
13
your perspective as Amtrak's lead negotiator, what
14
the parties did in this round that got us here
15
today.
16
A
Well, as I talked about earlier building
17
on our lessons from 242, we believe we have applied
18
them here and tried to further these negotiations
19
and reach deals as we did with the rest of our
20
bargaining units in this round.
21 22
So among other things, was bargain early for reasonable deals; do not delay.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
157
1
Our view is that just the opposite
2
occurred with the PRLBC, including roughly the year
3
and a half when a freight deal was being pursued
4
nationally.
5
Secondly, we pursued all deals, and we
6
negotiated openly with parties.
7
in some cases had unique issues, and we dealt with
8
them.
9
All of our unions
Again, so far the PRLBC, they have
10
insisted lock step on the freight deal, no other
11
exceptions are to be made.
12
We have been willing to negotiate with the
13
PRLBC as a coalition when we were initially
14
approached by them to do so.
15
The PRLBC, three of the bargaining units
16
left and are no longer here and have cut deals with
17
us to proceed in 2011.
18
We have set a pattern with 13
19
organizations.
20
join that pattern.
21 22
The PRLBC so far has declined to
We have presented options for higher wages, whether it be health, whether it be work
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
158
1
rules, any other options that could be provided.
2
Up to now, we have got no response.
And
3
in fact, cherry picking the freight deal on health
4
and welfare.
5
And last but not least, we have absolutely
6
had open books.
7
information on health.
8
review items both with their economist and at the
9
table.
10
We have shared volumes of We have had our consultants
Our finance department has done the same,
our engineering group.
11
And, again, we have met no response on
12
either alternatives or where our costs or our
13
assumptions could be improved, essentially no
14
bargaining back and forth.
15 16 17
Q
What points do you want to leave the Board
with from your testimony? A
Well, when you step back and you look at
18
this round today, I think the first is we have a
19
well-established pattern, 13 of 15 unions have
20
settled along the lines that I have discussed
21
earlier in the presentation.
22
It's clear the PRLBC at some point decided
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
159
1
to delay reaching settlement with us, instead,
2
publicly espousing waiting for the freight pattern
3
in their mind to settle.
4
We believe this Board should award the
5
Amtrak pattern.
6
done with our other unions, and we think it is the
7
appropriate action for this Board given that 84
8
percent of our workers are covered under these same
9
type deals.
10
It is consistent with what we have
However, we believe there is ample
11
opportunity, if the Board wants an alternative, that
12
there are plenty of opportunities for offsets to
13
provide greater GWIs, greater income to these
14
bargaining units here, but it would be offset with
15
health and welfare and work rules.
16
Again, we remain receptive to that as we
17
have throughout the bargaining round.
18
forward to keep working with the Board in that
19
regard.
20 21 22
MR. REINERT:
And we look
I have no further questions
of Mr. Woodcock. MR. WILDER:
May I have 15 minutes?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
160
1
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Not a problem at all.
2
We'll stand in adjournment.
3
(A recess was taken.)
4
CROSS-EXAMINATION
5
BY MR. WILDER:
6
Q
Good afternoon, Mr. Woodcock.
7
A
Good afternoon.
8
Q
On page 13 of your PowerPoint
9 10
presentation, you refer to an emergency room co-pay increase from $50 to 75.
11
Is that correct?
12
A
Yes, sir.
13
Q
And that issue has never been in dispute
14 15
between Amtrak and the PRLBC, has it? A
I'm not sure that it has been because I
16
think it's the same $75 on the freights, but we have
17
never fully discussed it.
18 19 20
But I think that's fair to say. Q
Throughout the dispute, it has been
narrowed to that extent?
21
A
Yes, sir.
22
Q
All right.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
161
1
A
If not more.
2
Q
Now, below that reference to the emergency
3
room on page 13 of your PowerPoint statement, there
4
is a reference to the so-called internal pattern
5
employee healthcare contributions.
6
Is that correct?
7
A
Yes.
8
Q
Now, the reference to 190 per month
9
beginning on July 1, 2011, actual 181.62, does the
10
190 figure refer to the cap and the 118.62 refer to
11
the 15 percent?
12
A
13 14
That is correct. The 190 is the cap.
Q
Now, at the time the current agreement
15
between the Amtrak and the BMWED and the BRS became
16
amendable, what was the employee healthcare
17
contribution monthly amount?
18
A
I don't remember what that amount was, but
19
we had one more recalculation left under the prior
20
agreement and that was July 1 of 2010, which
21
produced the 177.54.
22
I don't remember what the previous one
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
162
1
was.
2
Q
I see.
3
A
We could look that up if that's something
4 5
you would like. Q
6
Thank you. So as of the amendable date or shortly
7
thereafter, the employee healthcare contribution at
8
Amtrak was 177.54; correct?
9
A
On July 1 of 2010.
10
Q
And that was part of the status quo, was
11
it not?
12
A
Yes, the previous round.
13
Q
Now, you testified concerning your
14
understanding of the healthcare contribution issue
15
under the most recently concluded freight agreement.
16
Do you remember that testimony?
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
And you made reference to a $200 monthly
19
healthcare contribution.
20
Is that correct?
21
A
Yes.
That's what's in the agreement.
22
Q
Now, to your knowledge -- withdrawn.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
163
1
To your understanding, Mr. Woodcock, was
2
that $200 figure the figure that employees covered
3
by the freight agreement would be obliged to
4
contribute on a monthly basis at the amendable date?
5
A
That, I don't know.
6
Q
Ah.
Do you know what the monthly
7
healthcare contribution was on the freights when the
8
previous agreement became amendable in 2009?
9
A
I do not know that.
10
Q
You don't know whether that was 200 or
11
less?
12
A
Or more, no, I don't know.
13
Q
All right.
14
Fine.
I'm going to move to page 15 in your
15
statement to the so-called administrative work rules
16
and ask that Amtrak Exhibit 248 be placed on the
17
board, please.
18 19
MR. WILDER: board?
20 21 22
Can anybody read 248 on the
I can't even read it in front of me. BY MR. WILDER: Q
I'm going to ask you to turn to page 4 of
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
164
1
Amtrak 248.
2
Drawing your attention to the block
3
running from left to right at the bottom of that
4
page pertaining to TCU.
5
I'll ask whether the seniority entry,
6
restrictions on exercise of seniority part-time to
7
full-time and in/out of RSO with a one-year lock in.
8 9 10
My understanding from the agreement entered into between Amtrak and the TCU is that that provision is contained in a side letter?
11
A
Yes, sir.
12
Q
All right.
Now, the side letter bears the
13
date of the original agreement to which it is a side
14
letter?
15
A
I would have to see it to verify that.
16
Q
All right.
My question is whether you
17
remember, of your own knowledge, when that side
18
letter was concluded with the TCU?
19
A
20 21 22
No, I don't remember. But all our discussions were part of that
round that we concluded our Master Agreement with. Q
What are RSOs?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
165
1
A
Reservation Sales Offices.
2
Q
All right.
3 4
And how many reservation sales
agents does Amtrak employ? A
5
I believe the number is around 1,000. They're mostly agents.
6
Q
Are these telephone agents?
7
A
They handle a variety of transactions,
8
telephone being one of them.
9 10 11
But also now, their duties have expanded as technology and work has changed. Q
You testified during your direct
12
examination, Mr. Woodcock, that, after you received
13
responsibility for this round of negotiations, you
14
met with Mr. Boardman.
15
Do you remember that testimony?
16
A
Yes, sir.
17
Q
Was it at that meeting that Mr. Boardman
18
communicated to you his desire to enter promptly
19
into negotiations and conclude agreements if
20
possible?
21
A
Yes, it was.
22
Q
So that decision was made in January of
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
166
1
2010.
2 3
Is that correct? A
Well, it was contemporaneous with my
4
assuming the leadership role, but, yes, it was in
5
January 2010 we began our strategy and discussions.
6
Q
Did you begin meeting with the six
7
organizations that settled -- I'm sorry, not six,
8
eight organizations that settled by October 2010 and
9
in January of 2010.
10 11
A
meetings took place without consulting those files.
12 13
I'm not sure when the first discussions or
I wouldn't know. Q
I would be guessing.
Did Amtrak make the initial proposal for
14
the agreements that were entered into with those
15
eight organizations in 2010?
16
A
I'm not sure of the nature of your
17
question, but when we had our first discussions,
18
they were very broad.
19
And at that point, Amtrak formulated
20
proposals based on some of those early discussions
21
with certain of the unions.
22
There was nothing initially, but they were
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
167
1
more broad discussions about whether the unions
2
would be interested in entering deals along certain
3
parameters.
4
we formed a proposal at that point.
5 6
Q
And there was give and take, and then
I'm going to call your attention, again,
to Amtrak Exhibit 248, and that is on the page 1.
7
Did Amtrak seek work rule changes from the
8
ASWC, the Amtrak Service Workers Council, other than
9
what is set forth in Amtrak 248?
10 11
A
things that we had put on the table at that time.
12 13
I'm not sure.
16
I would have to consult the
file to determine if those talks evolved.
14 15
I don't recall whether there were other
My guess is it was very little there that we had. Q
Now, other than the changes described on
17
Amtrak Exhibit 248, did Amtrak request rules changes
18
from any of the other organizations listed on that
19
exhibit?
20
A
Again, without looking at the files to
21
know what we might have put on the table and
22
discussed with all the unions, I wouldn't be able to
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
168
1
accurately answer that.
2
I do know that some of the unions that I
3
talked about like ARASA-MW, FOP, we sought little
4
of -- the dining car steward, we sought very little.
5
Q
Was there a decision made by Amtrak not to
6
seek extensive rules changes from the organizations
7
in this bargaining round?
8
A
9
Yes. Within the parameters I described
10
initially, and that was one of the lessons learned,
11
I think, from 242.
12 13 14
Q
Can you share with us the rationale or the
reason for that corporate decision? A
The decision was really based on how can
15
we reach agreements amicably and obviously jointly
16
with labor.
17
And what were the items that we would be
18
discussing with each union.
19
unions had items they wanted us to discuss.
20
And in some cases the
But it was really part of the
21
collaborative collective bargaining process, but
22
certainly there were many work rules that we could
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
169
1
have put on the table with all of our crafts that
2
probably would have been too difficult for the
3
parties to overall lift.
4
Q
In your role as the leader of this round
5
of negotiations for Amtrak, did you solicit the
6
Amtrak operating departments on whether work rule
7
changes were required?
8
A
Yes, we did.
9
Q
Did you receive an affirmative or negative
10 11
response from the operating departments? A
Not -- no, I think every operating group
12
we talked to and was at the table with us had some
13
issues.
14
Again, many of them were along the lines
15
of these administrative issues that we put on the
16
table.
17
present at all our negotiations.
18
Q
But I believe the operating people were
I see.
Were you present in the previous
19
round of bargaining between Amtrak and its labor
20
organizations?
21 22
A
I would say many of the meetings, but I
don't know that I was at all of the tables in the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
170
1
previous round.
2
I have my own crafts that I was primarily
3
responsible for, and I was at some towards the end.
4
Q
And you did testify, I believe, in this
5
proceeding that a certain number of those
6
organizations had reached agreement with Amtrak
7
prior to the decision of Presidential Emergency
8
Board 242.
9
Is that correct?
10
A
Yes, sir.
11
Q
Did Amtrak sign me-too provisions with
12 13
those organizations? A
I don't believe that we did without
14
looking back at those agreements.
15
I don't believe we did.
16
Q
During your direct examination, you
17
testified that in February of 2011, you were
18
approached by the sheet metal workers.
19
A
I don't remember I said the date, but it
20
was early in 2011 that I was approached by the sheet
21
metal workers.
22
Q
Would it be accurate to say that the sheet
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
171
1
metal workers had a concern with jurisdictional
2
limitations within the mechanical department?
3
A
4
I don't recall that being an issue. Their issue was about their number, their
5
stability or their number in relation to other
6
crafts.
7 8 9 10
Q
All right.
Was the number of sheet metal
workers shrinking? A
I don't believe without looking at the
numbers, I don't think it had been shrinking.
11
But they desired to move away from a hard
12
number that could go up and down to a percentage of
13
the workforce mechanics.
14
Q
15 16
Is that correct? A
17 18 19 20 21 22
And they achieved that goal in this round.
At least to my knowledge, they did. I'm not sure they got everything they
wanted, but they did. Q
Were they the only organization that
wanted relief of this nature? A
We had been requested of it by the
boilermakers, but I think with a leadership change
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
172
1
we never got a change to advance that.
2
But they also, like the sheet metal
3
workers, have an equity number.
4
hard headcount number.
5
with us, and we told them that we would leave the
6
door open to continue those discussions, but we did
7
not reach it with anyone else.
8
Right now, it's a
And they were exploring ways
This is not our request.
9
Q
10
type of ...
11
A
Only one.
12
Q
Only one?
13
A
The boilermakers are where likely former
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
So there were two organizations with the
sheet metal workers were prior to this round. Q
Right.
But as to the -- what were the
other organizations? A
The boilermaker and the sheet metal
workers are the two. Q
And so you left the door open for the
boilermakers to seek the same kind of agreement? A
If they wanted to, they could come talk to
us, yes.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
173
1
Q
2 3
I understand. I want to draw your attention to page 21
of your statement, Mr. Woodcock.
4
A
Yes.
5
Q
Entitled:
6 7 8 9
"UTU joins the Amtrak pattern."
Are conductors used in the cabs of Amtrak trains? A
Only in cases where we have no second
engineer, which is rare.
10
Our rules with our engineers require on
11
runs of six hours or more outside the Northeast
12
Corridor, that there be a second fully qualified
13
passenger engineer.
14 15
Q
fully qualified as an engineer.
16 17
And that -- so that conductor would be
Is that correct? A
18
No.
No.
They could only go up front to be a second
19
pair of eyes and call signals on the railroad as a
20
safety feature.
21 22
Q
How many conductors, fully qualified
conductors, are employed by Amtrak?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
174
1
A
I'm not sure of what that number would be.
2
The craft number is over 2,000.
3
And at any given day right now in our
4
operation we have about 1,300 conductor assignments
5
yards, where crews work trains, transfer trains in,
6
revenue and passenger service.
7 8 9
Q
And are the remainder of that 2,000 plus
in the craft assistant conductors? A
I believe that would probably be the case
10
or trainees that are in training through the initial
11
training period and assistant conductors and then
12
conductors.
13
Q
14
based on Exhibit No. 204.
15 16 17 18
Now, I get 2,047 in the craft and class
Is that correct? A
I'm looking on it now, page 7, 2,047, you
said. Q
To that number, some 1,300 are conductors,
19
and we're forced to talk in general numbers at this
20
point.
21 22
Do you happen to know that of the assistant conductors, how many are conductor
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
175
1 2
qualified? A
3 4
No, I don't. Let me just make one correction.
1,300 is
the number of positions any day.
5
There are vacancies at any given time due
6
to either manpower issues or qualifications,
7
qualifying certification, et cetera.
8
But on any given day, we need 1,300
9
conductors.
10
Q
11
Let me ask that last question I asked in a
better way, I hope.
12
Is there a number of assistant conductors
13
who are conductor qualified but choose to remain
14
assistant conductors?
15
A
16
Yes. I don't know what that number is, but
17
there are people who prefer to work as assistant
18
conductors.
19
Q
Is that number significant?
20
A
I would have to determine what it is or
21
what it was at the time we negotiated the rule, but
22
it is -- it is significant.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
176
1
Q
2 3
Okay. MR. WILDER:
Could I ask counsel that that
number could be supplied?
4
MR. REINERT:
5
MR. WILDER:
6 7 8 9
Certainly. Thank you.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
Now are all of your conductors certified
under Part 242 of the FRA regulations? A
All conductors as of this time, either
10
through grandfathered status, which is allowed under
11
the regulations, or having gone through
12
recertification class, all our conductors that are
13
operating as conductors are qualified.
14
Q
All right.
And so all of the conductors
15
you just described are eligible for the $250 annual
16
allowance.
17
A
Provided they meet all the conditions in
18
that rule, which, in addition to the certification,
19
is physical characteristics and qualifications among
20
other things.
21 22
It's in the rule that we negotiated. Q
Fine.
And the certifications remain in
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
177
1 2
effect for 36 months? A
3
I believe that's correct. But I'm not sure about the federal regs on
4
the timing.
5
Q
6 7
many conductors were seeking the annual $250 bonus? A
8 9 10
Do you happen to know, Mr. Woodcock, how
Not at this time. The first payment isn't until -- of the
250, until March of 2014. Q
Now, of the conductors who are presently
11
fully qualified, do you happen to know how many are
12
eligible for the $500 bi-annual performance bonus?
13
A
No, I don't because that -- the first of
14
the $500 performance bonuses, as I remember, isn't
15
payable until September.
16
There's a chart in the back of the rule,
17
and you have to fulfill the service and proficiency
18
requirements that are written up in the rule.
19 20
And by the way, hold a conductor period -a conductor position for the whole time.
21
So you have a position feature, which is
22
you have to be a conductor for the whole six-month
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
178
1
measurement period.
2
amount of service, and you have to fulfill any
3
proficiency checks that are performed.
4
Q
You have to fulfill a certain
When you negotiated this provision with
5
the UTU, had Amtrak made an estimate of how many
6
conductors would be eligible for that payment in
7
costing the provision?
8 9
A
here with me.
10 11
MR. WILDER:
MR. REINERT:
16
We'll see in what format it
exists if it does.
14 15
Let me, again, ask counsel if
that information could be supplied?
12 13
I believe we did, but I don't have that
MR. WILDER:
Thank you.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
Now, while we're talking about conductors,
17
there is a rule followed uniformly in the freight
18
industry that when a conductor becomes seniority
19
eligible to upgrade to engineer, that conductor must
20
be promoted.
21 22
In other words, he must qualify for promotion or he must leave service of the railroad.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
179
1 2 3
Is that rule in effect at Amtrak? A
No.
directly with the locomotive engineers.
4
The only promotion rule is within the
5
craft.
6
conductor.
7
We don't have any such connection
Q
You must be promoted within a year to
I'm going to ask a series of questions
8
relative to assistant conductors.
Before the UTU
9
agreement was entered into in April of 2013, was
10
there any requirement that assistant conductors
11
upgrade to conductor?
12 13
A
Not after the initial promotion except, of
course, for those that we might have taken over.
14
But the promotion rule did require that
15
you took the initial promotion step, but then you
16
could step back down and either not retain your
17
physical characteristics or your overall
18
qualification and now federal certificate.
19
Q
So that, before the UTU agreement,
20
assistant conductors who were required to stand for
21
examination and be promoted to conductor within a
22
certain period of time from hire.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
180
1 2
Is that correct? A
That would be for the people that were
3
coming up as trainees and then going from trainee to
4
assistant conductor; the former rule read within six
5
months, you had to stand for promotion and get
6
promoted.
7
back.
8 9 10 11 12
Q
But it didn't prevent you from going
All right.
Now, how did the UTU agreement
change the rule that you just described? A
Well, first of all, with the federal
certification, that applies just to the conductors. What we did is we not only said that the
13
assistant conductors coming out -- and I think this
14
is in the first part of the rule -- that the
15
assistant conductors standing for that promotion
16
within one year, not only do they have to maintain
17
and pass the -- all the training that's in that
18
rule -- I believe it's the first paragraph -- in
19
order to be eligible for the 250; but also, as a
20
condition of their employment, from now on, you have
21
to keep that series of qualifications up so that if
22
we need to use you, we'll be able to use you, excuse
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
181
1
me, as a conductor.
2 3
MR. WILDER: 245 on the screen?
4 5
THE WITNESS:
Would I be able to get a
copy of that from somebody?
6 7
Could we place Amtrak exhibit
My eyesight is probably -- thank you, sir. BY MR. WILDER:
8
Q
Could you turn to?
9
A
May I ask a question?
10 11
This is unsigned, do you know if this is the same as the signed one.
I don't --
12
MR. WILDER:
13
I believe it is but --
14
MR. REINERT:
15
All right.
We're going to get him the
exhibit book.
16
MR. WILDER:
17
I didn't notice that that wasn't signed.
18
THE WITNESS:
19 20 21 22
That fine.
Which exhibit number?
BY MR. WILDER: Q
245.
Excuse me.
Now, I'm referring to page 5, Mr. Woodcock, Section 2 of Article 3 which purports
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
182
1
to amend Rule 7 dealing with promotion?
2
A
Yes.
3
Q
Now, will these changes that we're looking
4
at now to Rule 7 be applicable -- to whom would they
5
be applicable within the assistant conductor ranks?
6 7
A question.
8 9 10
I'm not sure of the nature of your
They're applicable to the craft except those who have not yet taken and worked their way through promotion in less than a year.
11
There is a small group of employees that
12
are being -- on their way to being retired within
13
the next two to three years that we have waived
14
forcing them into the certification because of the
15
36 months.
16
Q
I see.
With the exception of that group
17
of prospective retirees, is Section 2 applicable to
18
everyone else in the craft?
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
Now, confirm the use of electronic
21 22
examinations. This implies to me that electronic
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
183
1 2
examinations were already in use at Amtrak. A
3
Yes. I believe that was confirming an
4
arbitration decision that we had.
5
confirming an arbitration decision we had where we
6
were using the exams in electronic form.
7
Q
That was
Now, include physical characteristics
8
qualifications, this involved hearing test, eye
9
tests, color blindness?
10
A
11
No. That would be the medical or what I would
12
call the employee medical requirements, particularly
13
vision acuity, which is covered under the
14
regulations.
15
This here is what we call the knowledge of
16
the railroad which is certain switches, certain
17
stations, physical characteristics of the territory
18
over which the conductor in charge of the train is
19
operating.
20 21 22
Q
Are you referring to territorial
qualification requirements? A
I believe that's essentially the most of
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
184
1
what that involves.
2 3
I'm not familiar with the complete regimen but that would be part of it, yes.
4 5
Q
Conductors have always had to meet that
requirement, haven't they?
6
A
Yes, sir.
But not as part of setting up
7
this rule for what they have to do to attain the
8
$250.
9
Q
Well, are the provisions that we're
10
looking at now in Section 2 amending Rule 7,
11
independent of the 250 and the performance bonus.
12
In other words, are these requirements
13
that would apply regardless of any monetary
14
compensation?
15
A
They would apply if you were the conductor
16
prior, but what this says now is that, if you desire
17
to retain even the 250, you must maintain all of
18
these elements in here.
19
Q
Were the bullet-pointed entries that we're
20
looking at in Section 2 Rule 7 already part of Rule
21
7?
22
A
No.
Except where you see that we were
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
185
1
amending, for example, the four to six months and
2
the six months to after a year.
3
But basically, without looking at the
4
prior rule, my memory is that these were considered
5
new elements in order to set up the $250, and then
6
also the $500 to give us a fully qualified
7
workforce.
8 9
Q
Were assistant conductors promoted to
conductor required to take an examination prior to
10
Amtrak 245 being entered into by the Company and
11
UTU?
12
A
My understanding is they did.
13
Q
Did the agreement that we're looking at
14 15
change those examinations in any way? A
I don't believe it did other than
16
codifying the electronic feature, and of course, now
17
you have additional elements with 242 that had been
18
folded into our training an examination process.
19
Q
Now, Bullet Point No. 4 amended the
20
minimum required assistant passenger conductor
21
service prior to promotion from four to six months.
22
Is that correct?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
186
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
And the purpose of doing that was what?
3
A
Was to allow an additional time for
4
seasoning and on the road experience before the
5
conductor could put in for an early attempt at
6
promotion.
7
Q
And I take it that was the same object of
8
the next bullet point to amend the promotion
9
requirement from after six months to after one year?
10
A
11
It's kind of the other side of the coin. This is when you must attain the
12
promotion.
13
to allow that seasoning and on-the-job
14
familiarization and training.
15
Q
16
So it did lengthen the time there also
Okay.
Let me try and understand.
Before this agreement was entered into,
17
did the assistant conductor have to stand for
18
promotion after six months?
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
Do I understand correctly that the next
21
provision add the following new section to the rule,
22
and small A, and bullet point small B, and bullet
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
187
1
point small C, and bullet points, refers to what we
2
have just read when it says successful completion of
3
all necessary training and examination?
4 5 6
A
Yes, as well as the items that followed,
Q
Now, in your testimony, Mr. Woodcock, on
yes.
7
page 21, you indicate that the UTU conductor
8
promotion rule is not automatic.
9
attainments and performance requirements.
10
There are
But I then understood you to say that the
11
assistant conductor had to stand for promotion after
12
one year.
13
Is that correct?
14
A
That is correct.
15
Q
All right.
And if the assistant conductor
16
does not stand for promotion or qualify for
17
promotion after one year, is that assistant
18
conductor terminated?
19
A
Yes.
20
Q
So the reference to "not automatic" refers
21 22
to what? A
To the performance bonus.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
188
1
Q
2
I see. Now, if the assistant conductor qualifies
3
for promotion and he works as a conductor, let's
4
say, for one year, can he bid back to the assistant
5
conductor position?
6
A
Without looking at the seniority rules, I
7
believe there is no reason the employee cannot bid
8
back.
9
Q
He cannot bid back?
10
A
I believe there's no reason that they
11
cannot, but they have to maintain their
12
qualifications.
13
Q
14
I understand.
Fine.
So how this agreement changed things is
15
that an assistant conductor, having qualified to be
16
a conductor, must maintain the qualification.
17
A
18 19 20 21 22
Yes, as a condition of employment. That is in this rule.
Q
But that conductor can bid and be employed
as an assistant conductor; correct? A
That is correct.
But they wouldn't be
eligible for the two bonuses.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
189
1
Q
Right.
Can the conductor qualify -- the
2
assistant conductor be assigned by the railroad to a
3
conductor position?
4
A
Yes.
5
Q
Now, is that a new rule or an old rule?
6
A
No.
7
That is utilizing the existing rules.
But now, with employees that are both
8
qualified, their physical characteristics, they have
9
taken a qualifying run, and they are certified, that
10
allows us to utilize those employees when we need
11
them.
12
Q
Is there any estimate by the record,
13
Mr. Woodcock, of the extent to which the pool has
14
been enlarged or will be enlarged as a result of
15
application of the UTU agreement in Company Exhibit
16
245?
17
A
I believe the operating member of our team
18
in the operations group in crew management did some
19
estimates of what they thought this could do to help
20
their operation and improve the efficiency, yes.
21 22
I don't have them with me. Q
Did they share those estimates with you?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
190
1
A
At the bargaining table, yes, to make sure
2
that we were obtaining relief that we thought was
3
helpful and favorable to us.
4 5
MR. WILDER:
that information can be made available.
6 7
MR. REINERT:
10
Subject to identifying and
finding it, yes.
8 9
Again, I'll ask counsel that
MR. WILDER:
Thank you.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
On page 22 of your testimony,
11
Mr. Woodcock, under the bullet point referring to
12
the $250 annual bonus, you said and I quote, this
13
pool change:
14
offsetting the expense."
15 16 17
"Results in quantifiable savings
Did Amtrak, in fact, attempt to quantify the savings? A
18
Yes. As I indicated a minute ago, our operating
19
people did take a look at this and figured this was
20
a rule that would provide a great benefit to us.
21 22
And I mean, the operation. Q
Can you remember whether or not the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
191
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
savings were actually quantified? A
operating people. Q
10
Is this the same information that we were
talking about before? A
I think it falls within your last question
about increased availability.
8 9
My recollection is that they were by the
And I think they did run numbers. Q
Did they translate those numbers into
dollars?
11
A
My recollection is that they did.
12
Q
All right.
13 14
MR. WILDER:
we're talking about as well.
15 16 17
My request would cover what
MR. REINERT:
I understand.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
Now, again on page 22, Mr. Woodcock, under
18
the bullet point referring to the $500 performance
19
incentive bonus, you have, Facilitates filling
20
Conductor vacancies and increases productivity
21
through the period.
22
I have left off availability because I
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
192
1
think you described that.
2 3 4
How does -- how does the performance incentive bonus increase productivity? A
Well, it increases productivity because
5
among other things, we will have less mark-offs.
6
Our people will be available more, we feel, through
7
this incentive and performance bonus.
8
Q
What is a mark-off?
9
A
A mark-off is in essence a book-off or an
10 11
absence. Q
Does Amtrak have absentee rules that
12
pertain to the conductor and assistant conductor
13
provisions?
14
A
15 16 17
all employees. Q
20
You may have covered this before, but I --
let me ask again.
18 19
We have an attendance policy applicable to
How does the performance incentive bonus reduce the need for additional staffing? A
Well, if we have more people because of
21
the bonus that are remaining in the conductor ranks
22
and more people that are retaining their
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
193
1
certification qualifications and physical
2
characteristics, even as ACs, we have less people we
3
need to train.
4
And, again, we're hoping to incentivize
5
people to take and fill all these jobs that will
6
eliminate the need for additional staffing that we
7
now have.
8 9 10
Q
Does a new hire in the conductor craft or
class at Amtrak have to be trained at the outset -withdrawn.
11
Does a new hire for the conductor craft or
12
class at Amtrak immediately enter training to become
13
a conductor?
14
A
I'm not sure, but I believe there's an
15
initial classroom training that's done before you
16
begin the hands-on training.
17
And then eventually within the year have
18
to attain a promotion to conductor, pass all the
19
exams.
20
Q
So would it be accurate to describe this
21
for the hiree as a continuous process during his
22
first year of employment?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
194
1
A
2
I'm not sure. I'm not that familiar with the process
3
from when one is hired or transferred from another
4
craft to what's involved.
5
on what stages they go through.
That would be guesswork
6
Q
Does Amtrak hire qualified conductors?
7
A
Where we have them off of freight roads,
8
we have had them with engineers, and occasionally
9
we're able to get them.
10
But of course they may have to be
11
recertified under the Amtrak rules and regulations
12
and qualifications.
13
But I believe we have been able to get
14
them before the people that want to come work for
15
us.
16
Q
The last entry on page 22 of your
17
statement reads:
18
reduction in 3rd party crews/costs."
19 20 21 22
"Positive impact on safety and
Could you explain what the reduction in third party crews/costs is? A
Yes. What that is, when you get outside the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
195
1
Northeast Corridor, in particular where we have
2
these very remote regions, for example, up along the
3
whole northwest of the country, Chicago to Seattle,
4
you'll have many outlying areas.
5
And there are oftentimes when a train will
6
get delayed or there will be a problem with the
7
train, and sometimes we need third-party crews
8
because the conductor, for example, will outlaw.
9
In this way, we feel we have the
10
opportunity now with assistant conductors being
11
qualified to take over that top job that we actually
12
can reduce sometimes the need for third-party crews
13
from the freights to bring the train in.
14
Q
Is this a large problem at Amtrak?
15
A
I don't know if it's a large problem, but
16
certainly at times where there is severe weather,
17
like right now, we have had crews that have to go
18
off the clock because of the hours, federal hours of
19
service law.
20
Q
Now, were any of these cost advantages
21
that you have mentioned in your testimony today
22
discussed during negotiations with the engineering
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
196
1
crafts?
2
MR. REINERT:
3
I'm not sure I understand what's being
4
Object to form.
referred to.
5
Maybe you can restate the question.
6
THE WITNESS:
7 8
Thank you.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
9
All right.
Let me clarify the question.
Today in your examination and in your
10
cross-examination, you have discussed the advantages
11
to Amtrak in entering into the agreement with the
12
UTU set forth in Amtrak Exhibit 245.
13
Is that correct?
14
A
Yes.
15
Q
My question is, During the negotiations
16
with the engineering crafts after April of 2013,
17
were the advantages to Amtrak of the UTU agreement
18
described to the engineering crafts?
19
A
20 21 22
No. I don't believe it was -- ever came up as
a topic of discussion. Q
Do you remember being asked about the UTU
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
197
1
agreement in June of 2013 and responding, We're not
2
going to discuss the UTU agreement?
3
A
4
No.
I don't remember that.
But I do remember during, I believe, our
5
meeting prior to the agreement finishing
6
ratification, I was asked about the deal.
7
maintained our silence as I indicated we were
8
required to by the UTU while it was out for
9
ratification.
10 11 12
And I
But I don't think I remember it ever coming up after that. Q
So do I understand you correctly to have
13
said that you're unwilling to discuss the Amtrak
14
agreement with the UTU while that agreement was
15
pending ratification by the organization?
16
A
17
Yes. That was the understanding we had with the
18
UTU, as I do with most unions, that we don't talk
19
about agreements when they're out for ratification.
20
Q
To your knowledge, Mr. Woodcock, had
21
collective bargaining negotiations begun at any
22
previous round, that is previous to this round,
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
198
1
prior to completion of the freight agreement?
2
A
Could you ask that again?
3
Q
All right.
My question is whether
4
collective bargaining negotiations between Amtrak
5
and the organizations representing its employees
6
begin in any round before this one prior to
7
completion of the freight agreement?
8 9
A
I don't recall.
There was one round where
we did reach a settlement, I believe, first before a
10
freight.
I think that was a 91 round and one
11
settlement.
12
Q
But otherwise, the parties at Amtrak and
13
its organizations waited until the freight agreement
14
was completed before commencing negotiations.
15 16 17
Is that correct? A
them or some of them came afterwards.
18 19 20
I believe that the agreements, many of
I don't know why the parties chose to do that. Q
Each round would have been different. Well, in light of that history, for the
21
PRLBC to wait for the freight agreement was not too
22
unusual, was it?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
199
1
A
What I would consider unusual is that we
2
were not approached in that vein to find out if we
3
would be amenable to waiting.
4
But we never had those discussions.
We
5
weren't alerted to that.
6
discussions could not take place because witnesses
7
weren't available.
8 9
MR. WILDER:
I'm going to ask that Joint
Exhibit 15 be put up on the screen.
10 11
Just indicated that the
(A discussion was held off the record.) BY MR. WILDER:
12
Q
Do you have Joint Exhibit 15 before you?
13
A
Yes, sir.
14 15
MR. WILDER:
Mr. Chairman, will a computer
class be conducted by the Board after this session?
16
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
17
THE WITNESS:
18 19 20 21 22
We're with you.
I'll join you, Roland.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
All right.
I'm going to ask you to turn
to Article III, Other Changes. Now, am I correct that this is the proposal that Amtrak made to the BMWED?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
200
1
A
Yes.
2
Q
All right.
3
Drawing your attention to
Section 3, Training.
4
A
Correct.
5
Q
The effect of that entire rule change
6
would be to extend the period of assignment
7
following training from six months to one year.
8
Is that correct?
9
A
Correct.
10
Q
And in practical terms, what would that
11 12
accomplish for Amtrak? A
Well, the feeling at the time by the
13
operating people was that this would allow us to,
14
among other things, encompass a whole work season,
15
which would be much longer on Amtrak.
16
And it would be a retention, a greater
17
retention of those skills that we train a person for
18
from six months to one year.
19
Q
Is there something exceptional about the
20
period of assignment as that term appears in the
21
proposal?
22
A
No.
Other than the fact that we have had
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
201
1
a considerable difficulty in this craft with vacancy
2
issues.
3
And so our feeling was that this was an
4
attainable rule.
5
this issue that we were training people and then not
6
being able to use them on the jobs for which they
7
were trained.
8 9
Q
One to put on the table to address
As a practical matter, Mr. Woodcock, would
this permit the newly trained employee or the newly
10
qualified -- the employee which is newly qualified
11
for promotion to be assigned anywhere in the system?
12
A
I'm not sure what the assignment rules in
13
this particular craft provide for, but I would think
14
certainly consistent with that training agreement
15
whatever there is in the rules of agreement, we
16
would be able to assign them.
17
Q
Would it be accurate to say that this rule
18
goes to the core job security protections in the
19
BMWED agreement?
20
MR. REINERT:
21
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
22
Object to form. I'm not sure I
understand the question either, Mr. Wilder, and I
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
202
1
apologize.
2
MR. WILDER:
3
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
4 5 6
Let me ask it again. Thank you.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
Does the proposed rule affect job security
protections in the BMWED agreement?
7
MR. REINERT:
I'm going to object to form,
8
unless we specify what those job security
9
protections are that you're asking about.
10
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
I would rather not
11
guess, so if you don't mind spelling it out it will
12
certainly help us.
13 14
MR. WILDER:
foundation that may help a bit on that.
15 16 17
Let me provide a bit of
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Thank you.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
Does the BMWED agreement contain
18
protections against being assigned beyond
19
geographical limitations?
20
A
I'm not sure without looking at the
21
agreement, but I don't see how that changes this or
22
vice versa.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
203
1
Q
2 3
Let me withdraw the question on that. Let me call your attention to the previous
exhibit, which is the proposal to BRS.
4
And this is Exhibit -- Joint Exhibit 14.
5
A
I have it.
6
Q
Let me ask you to turn to page 5.
7
A
Yes, I have it.
8
Q
Section 3, dealing with assignment.
9 10 11
Are you familiar with the reasons for that desired change? A
12 13 14
Yes. At least as we originally described it
back in June and in subsequent sessions, yes. Q
15
Would this rule modify -- withdrawn. Does the current agreement between Amtrak
16
and BRS contain a provision that restricts the
17
assignment of employees more than 45 miles from the
18
employee's formal work location or farther from his
19
residence, with more than 60 normal highway route
20
miles -- 45 normal highway route miles from his
21
residence?
22
A
I believe -- yes, that's embodied in the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
204
1
current rules.
2 3
Q
And do you know what the purpose of the
45-mile limitation is?
4
A
The 45, no, I do not.
5
Q
Do you know whether or not the 45-mile
6
limitation is a job security rule?
7
MR. REINERT:
8
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
9
allow that.
I object to form, again. Test the witness.
I'll
That's fine.
10
He either views it that way or doesn't.
11
THE WITNESS:
12
BY MR. WILDER:
13 14
I'm not aware that it is.
Q
Do you recall what the BRS told you about
this proposal during negotiation?
15
A
No.
16
Q
Would you characterize the change in the
17
45-mile rule as an administrative change?
18
A
I would characterize it more as a
19
flexibility in filling some of our assignments on
20
the particular seniority districts.
21 22
This would help and be of assistance to us.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
205
1
Q
And how would it be of assistance to you?
2
A
Well, for example, and we discussed this
3
during our sessions, take the New York division.
4
By having 60 miles, we could extend down
5
to Trenton from New York, so that would cover that
6
stretch.
7
And in this case of Philadelphia, the
8
Philadelphia district, the ability to go out 60
9
miles would encompass some of the Harrisburg line
10
that's now not there.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
So it would allow us greater flexibility to have people fill jobs. Q
Are signalman given commuting expense by
the railroad? A
I don't know without looking at the rules
whether they are or aren't. Q
Is it still Amtrak's position today that
18
the BMWED and the BRS must concede those work rules
19
which we have just described in order to obtain the
20
what you have described as the Amtrak pattern
21
agreement?
22
A
Yes, I would.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
206
1
Q
Would it be fair to say that from the end
2
of 2010 through today, that both Amtrak and the
3
PRLBC stuck to their guns in bargaining?
4
A
5 6
I don't see it that way, no. I don't think that is fair to say.
Q
Were you aware then at the end of 2010
7
that Amtrak and the PRLBC represented unions had a
8
serious disagreement over whether the contract in
9
this round would follow the Amtrak internal pattern
10
or whether it would follow the freight pattern?
11
MR. REINERT:
12
There was no freight pattern in the end of
13
Object to form.
2010.
14
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
I think the question
15
can still be posed, even if whatever the freight
16
pattern was wasn't known at that time.
17
MR. REINERT:
He used the word "followed."
18
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
19
THE WITNESS:
I think it's okay.
I am not aware of those
20
discussions that may have taken place.
21
BY MR. WILDER:
22
Q
Let me refer to page 32 of your statement.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
207
1
Was it explained -- and I'm referring to
2
the quotation from the BMWED letter dated December
3
6, 2010:
4
reinforce any notion that Amtrak's contracts follow
5
an internal pattern is potentially very dangerous."
6
"We do think that action tending to
Was it explained to you during negotiation
7
why the PRLBC thought it dangerous to reinforce any
8
notion of an internal pattern?
9
A
No, not that I recall.
10
Q
Do you remember being told that breaking
11
the link between the freight and the Amtrak
12
bargaining could make the collective bargaining
13
process at Amtrak more vulnerable to political
14
pressure?
15
A
16 17
No, I don't recall that. I only recall that the freight deal was
the settlement that we should take.
18
MR. WILDER:
19
up Joint Exhibit 40.
20
BY MR. WILDER:
21 22
Q
I'm going to ask you to bring
Turn to the last page of that exhibit and
this --
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
208
1
A
Page 3, or the last one?
2
Q
Yes.
3
A
Page 4?
4
Q
Yes, the last page of Exhibit 45 (sic).
5
A
Yes.
6
Q
And were you copied on this document?
7
A
Yes.
8
Q
Move up to page 3.
9 10
The last one.
The next to last complete paragraph beginning after, this extended.
11
Do you see the second sentence:
"The
12
PRLBC cannot and will not dissolve the linkage
13
between the wages and benefits of the freight
14
industry and Amtrak, especially considering the GOP
15
platform's commitment to withdraw public funding
16
from the carrier."
17
Do you see that?
18
A
I see that.
19
Q
Do you remember reading that?
20
A
Not off the top of my head.
21 22
You know, back then I might have, but it was never discussed.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
209
1
Q
But you did receive the letter, did you
3
A
Yes.
4
Q
Early in negotiations, Mr. Woodcock, in
2
not?
5
2010 or perhaps early in 2011, was there a
6
discussion at the bargaining table between Amtrak's
7
representatives and those at the PRLBC about using
8
the commuter rails as a basis for coming up with an
9
agreement at Amtrak?
10
MR. REINERT:
I'm going to object to the
11
form of the question because it referred to
12
discussions between the parties at the bargaining
13
table during 2011.
14
There were none.
15
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
16 17
Actually, the question
is a little ambiguous. It was certainly some in '10, and there
18
were discussions at least with respect to some
19
former members that ultimately led to deals; right?
20
So I'm happy to let Mr. Wilder pose
21
whatever question he want's.
But it's a little
22
unclear as to precisely what he's asking about.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
210
1 2
MR. WILDER:
I'm not sure I need 2011 in
there.
3
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
4
MR. WILDER:
5
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
6
MR. WILDER:
That's good.
I do think -That works too.
-- think there were
7
discussions in January of 2011, but I will withdraw
8
that part of the question.
9 10 11 12 13
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Fair enough.
BY MR. WILDER: Q
But do you recall discussions about wage
settlements at the commuter rail carriers? A
I do recall them right at the early part
14
of our negotiations, and I believe there was
15
something in your Section 6 about that.
16
Q
Has Amtrak ever regarded the commuter rail
17
agreements as a template for its own negotiations
18
with its unions?
19
A
Not that I'm aware of in our history, no.
20
Q
Referring to page 43 of your statement,
21
and I'm referring the July 17, 2013 collective
22
bargaining meeting.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
211
1
Before that meeting, had Amtrak made an
2
explicit wage proposal or wage increase beyond the
3
so-called Amtrak pattern to the PRLBC?
4
A
I don't believe we had put any additional
5
elements on the table, but we had talked about it
6
extensively.
7
Q
And that was in the context of developing
8
work rule concessions that would tend to bridge the
9
gap between the Amtrak internal pattern settlements
10
and some unspecified higher point in wages.
11 12
Is that correct? A
Well, work rules of the types that we had
13
put on the table as well as healthcare and any
14
others that PRLBC might have desired to put out
15
there.
16
Q
Was it at the July 17 session that the
17
idea of interest arbitrating our dispute was put
18
forward?
19
A
I believe that is correct, as we were
20
approached by the chair -- Chairperson Gillula on
21
that subject on the last day.
22
Q
That was the organization's idea, was it
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
212
1
not.
2
A
I believe it might have been, but I wasn't
3
present when it was being discussed with you behind
4
closed doors.
5
MR. WILDER:
One moment, Mr. Chairman.
6
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
7
MR. WILDER:
Of course.
Let the record reflect that I
8
have completed my cross-examination at 2 minutes of
9
5.
10 11
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
It most definitely
does.
12
Did you plan on any redirect?
13
MR. REINERT:
14
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
15 16 17
Very brief. That's fine.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. REINERT: Q
Mr. Woodcock, Mr. Wilder asked an
18
extensive number of questions about the UTU
19
Conductor Agreement, and particularly the promotion
20
rule and associated bonuses.
21 22
Do you recall that line of questioning? A
Yes, sir.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
213
1
Q
And I think you have before you Amtrak
2
Exhibit 245, which was the language of the UTU
3
Conductor Agreement which shows it signed on April
4
17, 2013.
5
Is that correct?
6
A
Correct.
7
Q
Okay.
If you look at your timeline, up
8
there at April 17, 2013 is when that UTU agreements
9
were concluded.
10
So from April 17, 2013 on, did you receive
11
any written communication from the PRLBC asking for
12
an explanation of the UTU conductor performance
13
bonus and how it works?
14
A
No.
15
Q
Okay.
And I'm looking at the timeline,
16
and there was, in fact, a communication, a written
17
communication from the PRLBC to Amtrak on May 3,
18
2013, a couple of weeks after the UTU Conductor
19
Agreement.
20 21 22
Do you recall that? A
Yes, sir. MR. REINERT:
Could we call up that
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
214
1
exhibit?
2 3
I believe that's Joint Exhibit 47. BY MR. REINERT:
4
Q
Do you have that before you?
5
A
Yes, I do.
6
Q
And what is Joint Exhibit 47?
7
A
It is a letter to our Board chairman from
8
Jed Dodd and Dave Ingersoll, and among other things
9
it is asking that we -- Amtrak joins in asking the
10 11 12
Mediation Board to release us. Q
Is there any reference in that letter or
the attachments to the UTU Conductor Agreement?
13
A
No.
14
Q
And Joint Exhibit 47 is dated May 3, 2013;
15
correct?
16
A
Correct.
17
Q
Okay.
18
So then your next live meeting with
the PRLBC is the July 16 and 17 mediation sessions.
19
Is that right?
20
A
Correct.
21
Q
And I think you have already said, but
22
I'll ask you again, just to make sure, were there
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
215
1
any questions raised by the PRLBC during the July 16
2
and 17, 2013 mediation session concerning the
3
details of the UTU Conductor Agreement?
4
A
None that I recall.
5
Q
Is today in this hearing the first time
6
that Mr. Wilder or anyone from the PRLBC has asked
7
you questions about the April 17, 2013 UTU Conductor
8
Agreement?
9
A
Yes.
10
MR. REINERT:
11
MR. WILDER:
12
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
13 14 15
18 19 20
I have one. Sure.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILDER: Q
16 17
I have no further questions.
One question. As of July 16 and 17 of 2013 had the UTU
agreement been ratified? A
Yes.
It was ratified.
That is an actual date of signature, April 17, that was -- that was an actual signing.
21
MR. WILDER:
Nothing further.
22
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
I assume no further
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
216
1
direct?
2
MR. REINERT:
3
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
4
Anything from you folks
at this point?
5 6
No further direct.
We have got just a few.
We'll try to keep
them as brief as we can, Mr. Woodcock.
7
With respect to the UTU performance
8
bonuses that you have testified about at some
9
length, could we go back to Exhibit 245, if that's
10
possible.
11
Thank you.
12
With respect to the $250 annual payment,
13
it looks like that requires as one of the conditions
14
that the individual perform services as a passenger
15
conductor at least once in each calendar year.
16
THE WITNESS:
That is correct.
17
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
Should one
18
assume from that, that the vast majority of people
19
who otherwise qualify, meaning meet the other
20
conditions for the 250, will also meet it because it
21
only requires service once in the calendar year and
22
you have got the right to assign people as needed?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
217
1
THE WITNESS:
No.
I think that the
2
purpose of this was that, again, if you decide and
3
you can hold a conductor position but you go down to
4
an assistant conductor, now you have to work at
5
least once to remain passenger conductor qualified.
6
And this was to frankly address concerns
7
that on occasion people would indicate they might
8
not be -- feel comfortable working a conductor's
9
position in the past, and so this is a requirement
10
that as part of that you have to actually mark up at
11
least once on a conductor position while retaining
12
all the other qualifications to get the 250.
13 14
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
So I don't mean to be
confused, but let me back it up.
15
If I'm certified as a conductor, I bid
16
back into an assistant conductor's position, is
17
there any requirement in terms of Part 242
18
certification that I work at least once a year in a
19
conductor spot?
20 21 22
THE WITNESS: no.
To the best of my knowledge,
That's an Amtrak requirement in this rule. ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
That's fine.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
218
1
And would Amtrak have the ability to
2
assign that qualified assistant conductor to work as
3
a conductor if you needed that service?
4
THE WITNESS:
Yes, that would --
5
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
So would you
6
normally assume that performing service at least
7
once in a calendar year is something that you had
8
hit for the vast majority of these people, or do you
9
expect this to be a significant disqualifier in
10 11 12
terms of the $250 annual payment? THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure if analysis was
done on that.
13
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
14
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
It simply dealt -- felt it
15
had to be a requirement so that people did, for lack
16
of a better term, retain their field for the
17
position of ticketing and things like that, in
18
addition to their annual training.
19
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
For the
20
six-month performance bonus of $500, it looks like
21
one of the requirements is that they be compensated
22
as a passenger conductor on not less than 120 days
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
219
1
during the performance period.
2
Am I reading that correctly?
3
THE WITNESS:
4 5
Yes.
In addition to
actually holding a conductor position. ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Right.
So does that
6
mean that someone has to actually work in the
7
conductor's job as a passenger conductor, or not,
8
for the 120 days?
9
THE WITNESS:
It means you have to
10
actually be assigned to and hold a conductor's
11
position and work the requisite service
12
requirements.
13
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
And do the
14
conductors work five days a week, eight hours a day,
15
or are the schedules varied and include other forms
16
of schedule?
17
THE WITNESS:
The schedules vary.
18
I mean, the Corridor is different than off
19
corridor where you have long runs and layovers.
20
the Corridor, you're generally home each night.
21 22
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
In
The reason I was asking
is 120 days in six months is almost full-time five
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
220
1
days a week, isn't it, if you do the math?
2
THE WITNESS:
3
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
4
THE WITNESS:
5
And there was much discussion about that,
6 7
It is -After vacation.
It is fairly aggressive.
the final number to rest on. ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
And I assume the data
8
that Mr. Reinert was going to look for and see what
9
form it's in and the like might show whatever the
10
projections were in terms of what actual payouts
11
would be projected to be for the employee group?
12
THE WITNESS:
I think that's the case.
13
Like I said, the operating people did take
14
a look at this and helped us develop a proposal at
15
the table, and I don't have that with me.
16
But again, we don't -- the first of the
17
payments isn't until March.
And then the first of
18
the performance bonus payments I believe in
19
September of this year.
20
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
21
Was the intent from Amtrak's end to go
22
Right.
I understand.
ahead and have the same net cost in terms of
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
221
1
compensation to each of the bargaining units after
2
you factored in the general wage increases and the
3
work rule and benefits changes, or did you have
4
variation built in?
5
THE WITNESS:
There was variation because,
6
as I said, some crafts, once you got beyond health
7
and welfare and wages that had little or no rules to
8
give or either party was not interested in pursuing.
9
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
So some of the work
10
rules have significant dollar effect, others not
11
much at all, question mark?
12
THE WITNESS:
That would be correct.
13
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
And so the
14
various organizations accepted -- those who settled
15
so far, I'm focused on obviously, accepted the same
16
general wage increases, but maybe different value.
17 18 19 20
Some got less than others, some more, question mark again? THE WITNESS:
We didn't have in-depth
discussions at all about the valuing of those rules.
21
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
22
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
I mean, with the PRLBC.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
222
1 2
So what we got, we got, and we moved forward with deals.
3
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
4
ARBITRATOR FISHGOLD:
5
Okay. Can I interject for
a moment?
6
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Of course.
7
ARBITRATOR FISHGOLD:
Apparently, you say
8
this was a particularly -- discussed with UTU, the
9
question of the 120 days and the six months and the
10 11 12
et cetera. I mean, that's an extensive requirement of time on the part of these individuals, is it not?
13
THE WITNESS:
Yes, it would be.
14
It would be.
And, again, we're hoping
15
that the incentive out there will require people to
16
remain available, qualified, usable, et cetera to
17
help our operation.
18
ARBITRATOR FISHGOLD:
Well, the hope
19
obviously is that will happen because if it turns
20
out that that's what really happens, and you wind up
21
paying the $500 or the $250, you might be getting
22
your money's worth in terms of having the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
223
1
opportunity, the availability to use these people in
2
those positions where without that -- those changes
3
in the rules, you would not have that opportunity to
4
use those people.
5
THE WITNESS:
6
this will help us significantly.
7 8
Our operating people believe
They were at the table with us, the head of crew management in particular.
9
ARBITRATOR FISHGOLD:
Now, I also heard
10
you, in response to one of Mr.
11
say that, as you're sitting here today, are you
12
still saying that the basis for an agreement with
13
the PRLBC would having to be the pattern including
14
the -- and I believe it's five work rules that have
15
been identified, the training for the maintenance of
16
way and what was the other one?
Wilder's questions,
17
Well, there were five as I recall five.
18
What you're interested in is -- and from
19
Amtrak's perspective, even though you couldn't --
20
even though we're find out what some of that data is
21
for the estimated or projected cost savings by
22
having those rules changes, you would anticipate --
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
224
1
you anticipate that same projections would probably
2
be applicable to the two remaining unions?
3 4 5 6
Talking about cost saving projections, productive, availability, et cetera. THE WITNESS:
Well, we never had those
discussions.
7
We shared volumes of information.
8
ARBITRATOR FISHGOLD:
9
No.
I understand
you didn't have those discussions, but I'm asking
10
you, as you're sitting here now, you believe in
11
order -- if you were asked to justify why it is you
12
say you need those particular work rule changes for
13
this group, that you would be able to quantify it in
14
a similar fashion that you were quantifying with
15
the -- with your operating people with regard to the
16
other unions.
17
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
18
And I apologize if this may be saying the
19
obvious, but that has -- that data has been provided
20
repeatedly including in the last two comprehensive
21
packages in Tab 7, extensive annualized values to
22
the rules, sharing all this information, the
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
225
1 2 3 4
spreadsheets. ARBITRATOR FISHGOLD:
Let me give you a
big hypothetical. Hypothetically, if at some point during
5
the course of the proceedings you suddenly learn
6
through a witness or evidence that is produced by
7
the unions that, instead of the training change or
8
instead of another change that you have had in your
9
internal pattern, that would you consider -- and
10
they proposed something else, and there's a way to
11
try to quantify what the cost of that might be or
12
the value of that might be, are -- is Amtrak --
13
would Amtrak consider some other work rule changes
14
with regard to this particular group that were not
15
obtained with regard to the other groups that fell
16
into a pattern?
17 18
THE WITNESS:
In response to that
hypothetical, yes.
19
ARBITRATOR FISHGOLD:
20
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
21 22
Okay.
I had a few more in
some other areas. But before we leave the UTU, there was one
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
226
1
last factual question that I had.
2
Do these units have yard conductors as
3
well, or only passenger -- are there people who work
4
only in the yard in the UTU?
5
THE WITNESS:
I'm not familiar with what
6
that might be on the freights, but on Amtrak there
7
are some assignments that were predominantly yard
8
transfer crews, but combined rosters.
9
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
Would someone
10
who had that kind of assignment qualify for this
11
under this language, or was the intent by using the
12
phrase passenger conductor position to exclude that
13
individual?
14 15
THE WITNESS:
No.
That individual would
qualify under this.
16
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
Let me shift
17
gears, if I may, away from the UTU and the conductor
18
issues.
19
You indicated that the incentive plan that
20
was referenced in each of the agreements is possibly
21
being created had not yet been created.
22
Did I hear correctly?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
227
1
THE WITNESS:
That is correct.
2
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Do you know whether
3
that has been abandoned for the term of the
4
agreements or whether there are still plans on the
5
table to do something whatever that something may
6
be?
7
THE WITNESS:
It has not been abandoned.
8
And the problem is we never anticipated
9
being this far downstream and not having everybody
10
on board where depending what the national metrics
11
might be, we can have everybody pulling in the same
12
direction, CSI, one-time performance, customer --
13
that's -- excuse me for the jargon, customer
14
service, customer service index.
15
And so we had anticipated putting together
16
a plan with all unions participating in the same
17
time and pulling.
18
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
So the failure
19
to have reached agreements with these two groups put
20
that on hold from Amtrak's end?
21
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
22
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
Let me shift
228
1
gears, if I may again, and focus on AmPlan, and I
2
have got some very narrow questions.
3
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
4
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Historically, do you
5
know whether changes have been made on a bargaining
6
unit by bargaining unit basis as settlements have
7
been reached?
8 9
Have there been any staggered settlements in the past much like you wound up with in this
10
round, or is it the first time that changes didn't
11
take place for all of the organizations on the same
12
day?
13
THE WITNESS:
Most of our bargaining that
14
I have been familiar with is units would come in at
15
different times.
16
Some would come in at the same time, but I
17
don't think we have ever reached a settlement with
18
certainly everybody at once.
19
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
And have changes
20
to either employee contribution rates or plan
21
provisions or whatever it may be, been implemented
22
on a unit-by-unit basis as the agreements are
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
229
1
reached?
2 3
THE WITNESS:
police, I don't believe so.
4 5
With the exception of the
They have a slightly different approach on a few provisions, but no, I don't.
6
And the TCU and the ASWC have a slightly
7
different series of provisions on disability,
8
lengths of disability times.
9
some different rules, but it's not common.
10 11
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
So we have reached
Okay.
So even
though --
12
THE WITNESS:
But it has been done.
13
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
14
I didn't mean go cut you off.
15
So even though it's a single plan, it has
I'm sorry.
16
been applied differently in certain respects to
17
different bargaining units based on whatever was
18
bargained?
19
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
In those areas that I
20
cited are a couple that come to mind.
21
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
22
And so the change in ER costs have been
Fair enough.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
230
1
applied at this point to all of the groups other
2
than the BRS and the BMWED?
3
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
4
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Okay.
Early on in your
5
testimony, you referenced a cap on comp time with
6
respect to at least one of the other organizations.
7
I apologize for not focusing on it at the
8
moment.
9
time usage during the course of a year.
10
But you described it as a limit on comp
Is it a limitation on what can be earned
11
as well, or were you precise in the description and
12
it only applied to what could be used as distinct
13
from what could be earned?
14 15
THE WITNESS:
I would have to look at the
rule, which I can do.
16
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
17
THE WITNESS:
18 19 20
Fair enough.
But our focus was to cut the
amount of time that people were taking. And so that's why we had a cap on it that was in the rules we reached.
21
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
22
Anything further?
Okay.
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
231
1
Anything further from you?
2
I think we're in good shape.
3
Anything further from counsel on either
4
side?
5
First, any further direct?
6
MR. REINERT:
7
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
8
MR. WILDER:
9
12 13 14
BY MR. WILDER: Q
19 20 21 22
Is the time that's banked in lieu of
overtime? A
Yes. You take the half or premium portion of
the overtime, and you put that in the bank.
17 18
I had just one question,
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION
15 16
Any further cross?
Mr. Chairman, relates to the bank time.
10 11
No further direct.
You get paid the straight time and bank the half. Q
All right. ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
Thank you for the
clarification. Anything further?
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
232
1
MR. REINERT:
2
to talk about schedule tomorrow.
3 4
Nothing further other than
ARBITRATOR JAFFE: very much, Mr. Woodcock.
5
THE WITNESS:
6
ARBITRATOR JAFFE:
7
10 11
Thank you to the Panel. Off the record.
(A discussion was held off the record, and the
8 9
Let me say thank you
witness stood down.) ARBITRATOR JAFFE: until 9 o'clock.
We stand in recess
Thank you.
(Whereupon, the proceedings in the
12
above-captioned matter were recessed at 5:20 p.m. to
13
resume on January 7, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212
233
1 2
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER I, Joseph A. Inabnet, do hereby certify
3
that the transcript of the foregoing proceedings was
4
taken by me in Stenotype and thereafter reduced to
5
typewriting under my supervision; that said
6
transcript is a true record of the proceedings; that
7
I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed
8
by any of the parties to the action in which these
9
proceedings were taken; and further, that I am not a
10
relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
11
employed by the parties thereto, nor financially or
12
otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
13 14 15 16
__________________________ Joseph A. Inabnet Court Reporter
17 18 19 20 21 22
Inabnet Court Reporting (703) 331-0212