Vacation Recovery Pay Statement Display

Vacation recovery is shown differently on the new pay statements, and this is causing some confusion.

To clarify how it should be interpreted, please first look at the bottom left Before Tax Deductions section. There is a line called Gross Recollection with two columns – Current and Year-to-Date. The Current column displays the amount collected in this pay period; the Year-to-Date is a new feature that is displaying a recollection total beginning with this pay period, since we never had accumulated that information on the pay statement before. This will accumulate going forward. Please note that this Year-to-Date column only represents the recollection starting June 16, 2009; this is in addition to all previously recollected amounts. Also, this is a display line item – it will not calculate to the Total Before Tax Deductions at the bottom of the box.

The section immediately above that one – Gross Earnings – includes a Total Gross Earnings sum at the bottom of the box. This is the employee’s correct gross earnings, and you will find that same number carried over to the top line of the Payment Summary section at the top right, the first line being Total Gross Earnings. Now this part is very important: Before any gross-to-net calculations are made, the Gross Recollection / Current amount referred to earlier (representing the vacation recollection for the current pay period) is deducted from the Total Gross Earnings.

TY&E Vacation Recovery FAQ         

This week, employees began receiving letters outlining the details of how they were impacted by the vacation adjustment. The following are a few frequently asked questions about the letters and the impact.

Q. Do I have to file an amended tax return because of this issue?

A. No, employees actually received and paid taxes on the inflated vacation rates in 2008.

Therefore, the previous tax paid was correct. The 2009 recoveries will be taken from gross pre tax earnings, and will thereby reduce taxable income by the equivalent amount paid in 2008. The overall impact is a wash for 2008 and 2009 tax purposes.

Furthermore, we have corresponded with members from the IRS, our internal tax department, and an independent tax lawyer as requested by the Organization’s leadership team. The handling has been confirmed in compliance with tax code, and no further action is required on the part of the employees. 

Q. Why is the vacation rate, on my letter, higher than the vacation rate showing on my 816?

A.  All employees received lump sum vacation rate adjustments last year. The payments were identified as a V8 payment on your 816.  These payments were makewhole adjustments for vacation that had already been used in 2008. V8 payments were made on June 30, August 15 and August 31 of 2008 (varied by craft). All unused vacation was then paid at the higher rate for the remainder of the year.  To view those V8 payments, you will need to rerun your 816’s for the appropriate pay period.  Since the V8 payment for the UTU back pay project was handled in a separate pay period, you can run that 816 by putting 2008 and “RG” in the pay period field.

In some cases, employees used all of their vacation prior to the V8 adjustment. Therefore, they only received the lump sum makewhole vacation adjustment. They did not receive vacation pay at the new rate because no vacation days were remaining.

In order to verify that your vacation rate is correct, you must take the sum total of all of your V8 payments and divide that number by the total number of vacation days taken in 2008. Adding that number to your original vacation rate will give you the actual 2008 vacation rate. That number should be reflected in your letter.

The formula is as follows:

(Original Daily Vacation Rate paid in 2008) + (V8’s divided by Total Vacation Days)

Q. Why doesn’t my W-2 show the same earnings reflected in the letter?

A.  The 1/52nd vacation rate calculation generally includes all compensation in association to working in the TYE craft.  However, there are some items that are not included.  Those items are non-taxable items, such as meals at the away from home terminal, mileage reimbursement claims etc... Also not included would be any former BN UTU Productivity Fund payments, former Santa Fe BLET ICP or any bonuses in association to temporary transfer work or relocation allowances.

Also, W-2’s are based off of earnings actually received between January 1 and December 31 of each year. Vacation rate calculations are based on pay period 01 to pay period 24 earnings, even though pay period 24 earnings are not actually received by the employees until the following year.

      Therefore the W-2 is not an accurate indicator of earnings used for the vacation rate calculation.   

If you would like further assistance in understanding the details and your individual impact please contact Compensation Systems through the VRU.

All, In December, 2008, the Organizations received a favorable arbitral ruling wherein it was determined that existing collective bargaining agreements did not give the Carrier the right to substitute paid leave for unpaid leave. Put another way, it was improper for the Carrier to allow payment of personal leave and/or vacation days when an employee was allowed unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Although the Carriers have now changed their policy on this matter, there was still no resolution regarding the proper remedy to those that were adversely affected. To update you, I just received word from the UTU International that the remedy piece of this dispute will be arbitrated on April 21, 2009, and a decision will be rendered within 60 days. What I am unable to advise is if we are successful with the remedy portion, will only those employee that submitted timeslips be eligible for the remedy or will this apply to all those adversely affected? We will not have an answer to this question until the decision is rendered.

Fraternally,

Randy K

A couple of operating employees contacted payroll in February, 2009 to complain that their vacation earnings for January, 2009 were less than what they were compensated for vacation in 2008. When researching the problem, it was discovered that instead of these figures being wrong, the Carrier actually overpaid the vast majority of vacation allowances in 2008. Apparently, both the second half of July, 2007 and the first half of October, 2007 were duplicated by their vacation calculator, which essentially based your vacation pay on “13” months earnings instead of 12. All employees who took vacation in 2008 and their compensation was based upon 1/52 of their earnings from 2007 were affected by this.

In examining the issue from an arbitral standpoint, it appears that neutrals have fairly consistently ruled that contractual time limits would not apply in instances where the overpayment was a “mistake,” and not purposely or intentionally executed. In other words, we do not have a leg to stand on with this issue other than to attempt to influence the repayment schedule.

While my initial suggestion was not supported by their software (so I won’t elaborate), the Carrier did consent to make the repayment schedule graduated based upon the amount owed. Theoretically, this should invoke less of a financial burden on those that who only have a few weeks of vacation and are presently having difficulty continuing to stay in active service. Regardless, repayment will only take place during pay periods in which the employee has earnings. 

As info, repayment will be as follows:

$0 to $399: $25 per pay period

$400 to $799: $50 per pay period

$800 to ??: $100 per pay period

If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact us.

Fraternally,

Randy K

Six International Union Vice Presidents To Go On Trial before UTU Executive Board

Federal Judge Denies Temporary Restraining Order

On January 30, 2009 at 1:00 P.M. Judge John R. Adams held a telephonic hearing on the motion by Joyce Goldstein, who is the SMWIA paid attorney for the six UTU International officers who have charges pending against them before the UTU Executive Board.  On February 3, 2009 at 9:00 A.M. the trials of these officers is scheduled to begin but a motion for a TRO had been filed to block the trials.

After hearing from Ms. Goldstein on behalf of the six Vice Presidents; Baffoni, Babler, Boling, Cumby, Iannone and Fitzgerald, Judge Adams asked several pointed questions to clarify their position on the propriety of the trials. 

The attorneys for the UTU International, the UTU Executive Board and the charging defendants also further clarified their positions citing the reasons why the trials should not be halted or delayed any further.  The UTU Executive Board has a constitutionally required duty to promptly investigate charges against International Officers and to determine their validity.

Judge Adams referred the parties to the charges filed by the defendants.  In doing this the judge stated that the charges covered many issues that dealt with dual unionism, failure of the officers to meet their obligations of their oaths of office and attempting to usurp the power of the UTU President under article 16 of the UTU Constitution while acting on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association.  He stated that the constitution did reference the Vice Presidents being subordinate to the UTU President.  He compared that to the precedent setting manner in which the SMART merger, which lies at the genesis of this dispute, was secretly negotiated by then UTU President Paul Thompson and only a few select others who placed the finished merger agreement as a fait accompli before the UTU Board of Directors and demanded their immediate approval.   

In closing Judge Adams denied the intervenors' motion to grant a TRO to stop the UTU Executive Board from holding the trials.  The Executive Board will begin these hearings on February 3, 2009 at the UTU International Headquarters in Cleveland, OH, at 9:00 A.M.

More information will be posted on the Save Our Union website as it becomes available.

The Carrier has advised that they intend to train approximately 250 engineers, system-wide, during the first quarter of 2009.  That said, we are receiving numerous inquires whether or not an employee may bid and be awarded a slot in the LETP when they are in furlough status.

First, I would like to state that it is the position of this office that it would be proper for a furloughed employee to bid and be awarded a slot in LETP.  We have discussed this at length recently and cannot find any provision that would prevent it.

However, the Carrier has taken the opposite position and deemed an employee for LETP while in furlough status.

Therefore, unless we can reach agreement otherwise, should an employee’s LETP application be denied simply due to being in furlough status, a grievance should be filed on his behalf contesting such.  Should you have any questions regarding the structure of the grievance, please feel free to contact us.  Keep in mind that any such grievance must be properly submitted and progressed under the time limits set forth in the existing agreement.

Randy K

Seems to be some confusion concerning the interlocking at Savanna. We had two instances, eastbound, 12/6 and 12/7 of trains having to put it into emergency at the diamond. In both situations the trains were stopped at CP 1462, then given a proceed indication. Per the rule below, highlighted, this is in the Chicago Division Timetable, Aurora Sub, page 6, when they start moving at CP 1462 and there speed is not above 20 MPH by time they go by the signal, they must move prepared to stop at the diamond. I have verified this with the rules department. Both instances they were under 20 MPH going by CP 1462 which requires them to be prepared to stop instead of blasting up to the signal and then putting it in emergency. If you could, please pass this on to your distribution list, it would be appreciated.

Rule 9.9.1—At automatic interlocking at IC&E, MP 144.8, the

following will govern:

A train must proceed prepared to stop at the interlocking signal

when:

• Moving below 20 MPH and passing a signal displaying an

indication more favorable than Approach that governs the

approach to the interlocking.

• Speed is reduced to below 20 MPH after passing a signal

displayi ng an indication more favorable than Approach that

governs the approach to the interlocking.

The train must continue to move prepared to stop at the

interlocking signal until the train reaches a point approximately

1,000 feet from that signal. If the interlocking signal then

indicates proceed, the train may resume speed.

Thanks,

Bob Fisher - RFE

LaCrosse

UNIONS WIN BIG IN FMLA ARBITRATION
A three-person arbitration panel ruled unanimously Dec. 2 (published Dec. 8) that the nation’s four largest railroads, which control some 90 percent of U.S. intercity rail freight traffic, no longer may require employees to substitute paid vacation and/or paid personal leave for unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
It was a stunning blow to BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific -- carrier parties to the arbitration who had been ignoring collective bargaining agreements and the law in an attempt to maximize employee availability. Other carriers likely will abide by the arbitration ruling.
Under the FMLA, employees may elect to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to deal with a family emergency, or a personal serious health condition. The law also provides that if employees have a more beneficial arrangement with the employer, the more beneficial arrangement shall take precedence.
Based on this provision, and the carriers' blatant violation of it, the UTU and 11 other rail labor organizations challenged the carriers, who agreed in July to arbitrate the issue.
The arbitration award becomes effective Dec. 22, at which time the carriers must "immediately discontinue" the invalidated provisions of their FMLA policies.
There is also a provision allowing follow-up proceedings to determine a monetary remedy for those who have taken FMLA leave and suffered by the carrier's forcing them to substitute paid vacation or paid personal leave for this time period.
The question submitted to the arbitration panel was: "Do the carriers' policies requiring employees to substitute paid vacation and/or paid personal leave for unpaid FMLA leave violate requirements of the national vacation and/or national personal leave agreements?"
In a 43-page award, arbitrators John E. Sands, William H. Holley Jr., and Jerome H. Ross said that collective bargaining agreements guarantee employees "a set number of paid vacation days" annually, with management restricted from administering the granting of guaranteed vacation days. The arbitrators also ruled that collective bargaining agreements similarly guarantee paid personal leave days.
The arbitrators cited a long history of other arbitration awards and court decisions backing their ruling that, "On the entire record before us, we must sustain the unions' position and find that the carriers' policies at issue to substitute paid vacation and/or paid personal leave for unpaid FMLA leave do violate the requirements of the national vacation and/or national personal leave agreements."

Voting Tally for 2009 Elections

Local Chairman Conductor

Terry Harwood     39

John Hoppe          13

Treasurer              

Dick Temple         82

Joe Cutrano          41

Secretary             

Colleen Heine       64

Jason Heath          57

Trustees

Brian Cantrell       113

Ron Phillipp           84

Russ Regner           79

Lee Lain               68

Total Votes        123

RAIL HEALTH & WELFARE PREMIUMS TO RISE SLIGHTLY

Members covered by the NRC/UTU Health & Welfare Plan and the Railroad Employees National Health and Welfare Plan will see their contributions rise by $4.71 per month in 2009 – from $166.25 monthly to $170.96 per month.

The $170.96 monthly employee contribution represents 15 percent of the total premium carrier’s pay monthly for employee health
and welfare benefits. The premium covers medical care, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and dental and vision benefits.
The national plans are negotiated jointly by the carriers and the Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations (CRLO).

'The health-care plans had an extremely favorable trend due largely to the removal from the rolls of some 20,000 ineligible
dependents, which trimmed some $30 million from the total costs of plan,' said UTU International President Mike Futhey.

'The new employee contribution rate, which is more than $20 lower per month than what was anticipated going into negotiations,
also reflects an expectation that railroad claims in 2009 will increase at a lower rate than the national average, owing to the addition
of plan improvements designed to reduce the frequency of treatment and severity of illnesses,' Futhey said.
These plan improvements include telephone contact with a nurse (the Nurse Line), custom-care coordination, disease management,
and strategies for participants to cease smoking and lose weight.

The plans' total monthly premium costs per employee for 2009 will be $1,061.46 for medical care, $12.30 for the life and accidental death and dismemberment premium, $55.98 for the dental premium, and $10 for the vision care premium, or a total of $1,139.74 monthly. Carriers will pay $968.78 monthly, and employees will pay $170.96 per month in 2009.