A coalition of labor unions has filed a lawsuit against a major railroad company, alleging bad faith modifications to a collective bargaining agreement. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) lodged the complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 10, 2024, targeting Union Pacific Railroad Co.
The case centers around an agreement known as the "11/4 Agreement," which was finalized in August 2023 after extensive negotiations. This landmark agreement was designed to regulate the work-rest cycle for engineers, allowing them to work for 11 days followed by four uninterrupted days off. However, Union Pacific has allegedly violated this agreement by unilaterally changing how engineers are scheduled upon their return from rest days. According to the complaint, Union Pacific is now placing returning engineers at the top of the call-out list instead of at the bottom, contrary to what was negotiated.
The plaintiffs argue that this change disrupts the intended benefits of the 11/4 Agreement and makes life more difficult for engineers. They claim that Union Pacific's actions lack any legitimate business rationale and are intended to force renegotiations under less favorable terms. The BLET points out that this modification not only breaches their contract but also undermines public safety by disrupting engineers' rest cycles.
Union Pacific's shift in policy coincides with a change in leadership at the company. Jim Vena took over as CEO on August 14, 2023, just one day before the formal signing of the agreement. The complaint suggests that Vena opposed the terms agreed upon by his predecessor, Lance Fritz, and has since sought ways to undermine it.
The labor unions are seeking judicial intervention to prevent Union Pacific from implementing these changes without proper negotiation. They request both preliminary and permanent injunctions to maintain the status quo until arbitration can be completed if necessary. Additionally, they seek a declaration that this dispute qualifies as a Major Dispute under Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. § 152), which would require Union Pacific to bargain in good faith before making any changes.
Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys Thomas H. Geoghegan, Michael P. Persoon, and Will W. Bloom from Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan Ltd., based in Chicago. The case is being overseen by Judge [Name] under Case ID: 1:24-cv-04810.