VIA Rail Update - After being found guilty of "collaboration" with VIA Rail BLE accuses Canadian government of being "culprits"

VIA Rail Update

After being found guilty of "collaboration" with VIA Rail
BLE accuses Canadian government of being "culprits"

"They just want to blame everyone else for their major failures."

CLEVELAND -- In a ludicrous attempt to stem the humiliation in the labor world after being found guilty by the Canadian Labour Board in an unprecedented decision of "collaborating" with VIA Rail to destroy the craft of conductor, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers now says the Canadian government is the real "culprit."

"You have to ask yourself, ‘Are they really nuts at the BLE’?" said UTU Assistant President Byron A. Boyd, Jr. "They have been found guilty by the Labour Board of working hand-in-hand with VIA Rail to eliminate the craft of conductor, and they won’t stand up and take their true medicine. They just want to blame everyone else for their major failures. But blaming the Canadian government just shows how desperate Ed Dubroski has become defending his losing cause."

Boyd added, "The BLE spin doctors must have taken a lesson from Serbia’s PR firm. And they have just about the same level of credibility … none! Everyone in labor now knows the truth about VIA Rail and that the UTU’s National Mediation Board action is justified."

On October 22, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (also known as the Labour Board) found that the BLE engaged in "improper collaboration" with VIA Rail, the Canadian passenger rail carrier, that cost the jobs of hundreds of railroad conductors and assistant conductors. The Board also said "the BLE failed to uphold a reasonable standard of competence in representing its members and, in this regard, is accountable to them for its shortcomings."

The decision was a major victory for the United Transportation Union (UTU), which represented the affected VIA Rail conductors and assistant conductors. The BLE, which solely represents locomotive engineers, has been attempting to "steal" the jobs of conductors in Canada and the United States.

However, if an effort to shift blame and responsibility for its part in collaborating with VIA Rail management, the BLE’s new International President said it was the carrier and the Canadian government who are to blame.

In a rambling press release, BLE President Ed "Landslide" Dubroski said, "We maintain that VIA Rail and the Canadian government are the real culprits here."

"There is only one real culprit," said Boyd. "And that’s the BLE collaborating with VIA Rail to destroy the craft of conductor. This time the BLE cannot rewrite history to fit its archaic political agenda. Maybe they can do that in Serbia, but the BLE’s secret deal with VIA Rail has blown up in their face and now the world knows they are collaborators with rail management."

In its decision, the Labour Board said "the BLE failed to uphold a reasonable standard of competence in representing its members and, in this regard, is accountable to them for its shortcomings."

The Board has ordered BLE to pay all legal costs, and has ordered VIA Rail and the BLE to comply with a series of measures that will give conductors and assistant conductors their rights – and possibly jobs – back. VIA Rail and BLE have been ordered to reopen the Crew Consist Adjustment Agreement in regards to selection process, seniority provisions, and the application of the Special Agreement negotiated between UTU, VIA Rail and Canadian National.

The Board found that the "BLE’s failure to adequately and fairly balance the interests of all its members in circumstances that touched upon the very core of their employment relationship constitutes, in the Board’s view, a failure to represent the membership’s legitimate interests. This failing to assume its responsibilities with integrity and competence amount to bad faith as prohibited by the Code. The union’s behavior is tantamount to the absence of representation within the context of collective bargaining."

In 1997, VIA Rail sought to eliminate the crafts of locomotive engineer and conductor and to create a new classification called "operating engineer" whose duties were to include the present duties of locomotive engineers and the greater part of the conductor’s duties. The Board ordered a representation vote in September for one union to represent the new "operating engineer" craft, and the BLE narrowly won the election. The BLE signed a "secret agreement" with VIA Rail on May 12, 1997, that discriminated against conductors and only came to light as a result of a Board hearing in April 1998.
Here are highlights of the Board’s decision:

"What these proceedings have brought to light is the BLE’s recklessness in telling conductors and assistant conductors that they would be able to return to similar positions on CN without assuring beforehand that these rights were indeed available."

"On all accounts, (BLE’s) campaign representations appear to have been based on unverified facts and assumptions, for example, that conductors and assistant conductors would obtain the similar benefits and conditions as the locomotive engineers, that they would have equal access to training and that the Special Agreement would apply."

"The complainants have been successful in establishing that the BLE was not vigilant in protecting and job seniority interests of an important part of the bargaining unit. It relied on the majority vote to justify its action, without addressing the hard core issues that affect almost half of the bargaining unit. The benefits obtained on behalf of the conductors and assistant conductors and assistant conductors, which are for the most part directed at terminating their employment, pale in comparison to the generous benefits obtained for the locomotive engineers."

"Somehow, it does not make labour relations or business sense for BLE to have embarked on such a venture without a blueprint for change, a communications strategy, a support plan for displaced employees and financial objectives."

"This outcome points to an improper collaboration between the employer (VIA Rail) and the respondent union (BLE) to achieve a desired outcome for both parties at the expense of the rights of the minority and the most affected group of employees. The Board considers such collaboration as unbecoming and contrary to section 94(1) and the spirit of the Code, which prohibits such practices.

View Decision