ACRE's MTA compensation package.  Is there any truth behind ACRE's claims?

ACRE will seize any opportunity to attempt justification of the compensation package afforded its primary officers by the MTA.

A recent Daily News article reported an existing situation concerning some union officers “released” to perform union work for municipal unions in New York City. Collectively these unions represent hundreds of thousands of members, ACRE has approximately 1,400. These positions were negotiated with the members’ knowledge. ACRE never mentioned the salary structure it planned to implement for Doyle and Bottalico during the promotion of ACRE, nor after ACRE’s formation did it notify the membership or offer the subject for a vote among the members. One municipal union reimburses the City for some release positions with concessions. The Commissioner of the Office of Labor Relations was quoted in the article, “We believe that the time has come to eliminate or reduce release time.” Actually there exists no comparison between these full or part-time release positions and the “assignments” Doyle and Bottalico have courtesy of the MTA.

First and foremost, Metro North operates under Railway Labor Act mandates, most of the municipal unions fall under Taylor Law provisions. Section 2 Part 4 of the Railway Labor Act states “it shall be unlawful for any Carrier to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees, or to use the funds of the Carrier in maintaining or assisting or contributing to any labor organization, labor representative or other agency of collective bargaining. The “full-time release positions” Doyle and Bottalico have are not offered to any other Metro North union officer, or any Long Island railroad union officers. If this were indeed a legitimate policy, why would it not be implemented on other commuter or freight railroads instead of just municipal unions generally covered by the Taylor Law? The MTA cites this arrangement as a “business decision”. ACRE always avoids any mention of the railroad industry when attempting to justify the compensation issue. In a December 8, 2000 letter mailed to each ACRE train and engine service member, ACRE claimed this practice of “release positions” was common throughout unionized industry. ACRE offered three National Labor Relations Act cases for examples. These cases were reviewed and they were not remotely similar to the release time issue as it is applied in Doyle and Bottalico’s situation.

Prior to ACRE’s formation, no UTU or BLE officer was compensated in this manner on Metro North. Bottalico’s salary for General Chairman of Local 77 in 1998, the last year a completed LM-2 was filed for the General Committee, was $102,000. His salary and benefits came from the dues dollars of Local 77 members. Doyle’s BLE General Chairman compensation for 1999 was $26,000 in salary and $28,000 in expenses. Metro North supplied Doyle’s benefits because he provided service to the Carrier operating trains. Doyle was a part-time General Chairman. His committee had about 315 members, not enough to support a full-time General Chairman’s position, such as Bottalico, whose committee had about 675 members in Local 77. Doyle’s Local 9 membership is approximately 350 members, still not enough to sustain a full-time union position, unless the Carrier subsidizes your union.

Bottalico currently has about 800 members. His MTA salary is approximately $90,000 plus benefits. His ACRE salary is about $70,000. Doyle has about 350 members and earns approximately $105,000 in salary plus benefits from the MTA. His ACRE salary is about $45,000. To explain the MTA’s subsidy we will use Bottalico’s situation as an example. If the subsidy was discontinued, and members of Local 1 compensated Bottalico with his current $160,000 salary and benefits, Local 1 would be bankrupt. If his $90,000 MTA salary and benefits were halted, the $97,000 surplus reported in the last newsletter by Paul Holland would be eliminated, and more, because benefits are an expensive item. This is of course assuming the members would still be willing to pay Bottalico his $160,000 salary. Doyle’s Local 9 would be in much worse shape financially. Compare Doyle and Bottalico’s salaries with some of the union officers salaries reported in the News article. Each officer represents thousands, if not tens of thousands of members. The PBA President, $109,000, the LBA President, $104,000, the President of The Uniformed Fire Officers Association, $114,000, the President of The Uniformed Firefighter Association, $103,000, you get the idea.

The question often asked, never answered, other than it was a “business decision”, is ‘why did the MTA offer this compensation to Doyle and Botallico?’

ACRE claims the compensation package was negotiated. When? Whenever ACRE or the MTA has been requested to produce this “agreement” they have selected Rule 51 of the Trainman’s Agreement or Rule 37 of the Engineers Agreement.. These agreements were in effect before Doyle and Bottalico were in office in the BLE and UTU. These rules provide compensation for the attendance of union officers at company directed conferences. Officers attending a conference will be compensated for the time engaged in conference with a minimum four hours of pay. If required to take off for the conference, from a service assignment for example, earnings of the assignment will be compensated. Neither rule mentions “release time” or benefits. How does this rule apply to Doyle and Bottalico? If you call the ACRE office and ask for Bottalico he is generally in and Doyle is usually on the 1207 or 107 to New Haven after arriving to the ACRE office about 9:00 a.m. Are these company directed conferences? And what assignments do Doyle and Bottalico own besides phantom assignments? Neither ACRE or the MTA has produced a separate agreement for Doyle and Bottalico’s compensation package.

The MTA began subsidizing ACRE before the promotion of the organization by officers of the then BLE and UTU. From December of 1999 to the end of February 2000, at least five UTU or BLE officers were placed on full-time “company business” or “special duty” assignments to promote ACRE. In December 1999 Doyle was placed on “light duty” without benefit of an injury. After Bottalico was removed by the UTU for violating his oath of office as a UTU General Chairman, he was placed in a “training” capacity. During this time frame, whenever there was a meeting or a conference to promote ACRE numerous officers were provided time off for “company business”. After ACRE’s formation, Doyle and Bottalico were placed on “company business”. They were joined in the late summer of 2000 by Ralph Sanzari and Ron DeAndrus. The non-existent assignments numbers were included in January 2001 and the “company business” designation was changed for all four. Ralph and Ron’s positions were dropped in April of 2003.

There are many opponents of the compensation package awarded to Doyle and Bottalico. The Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, various unions, including those on Metro North and the Long Island Railroad, the numerous Congressmen, Senators, N.Y. State Assemblymen and Senators that forwarded letters to the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, concerning the relationship between ACRE and the MTA. The Department of Labor has no jurisdiction in the compensation issue. Also in opposition are the members of Congress that voted in favor of the Omnibus language forbidding the MTA to compensate ACRE officers from federal funds. Also included are the State Legislature members that introduced the legislation to deny the MTA the ability to compensate ACRE officers from State, Federal or farebox funds. Last, but not least, don’t forget the ACRE members, more than ACRE will acknowledge, that disagree with the compensation offered Doyle and Bottalico.

In return for their compensation ACRE has allowed the Collective Bargaining Agreement to be compromised on numerous occasions the past four years. ACRE did not challenge the implementation of a sick time abuse policy by the Carrier, they claim they are preparing a case, three years after allowing Metro North to establish past practice and precedent. In fact, after a number of members have signed waivers or attended investigations for violation of the policy, nothing is scheduled with the National Mediation Board to challenge the policy. Bottalico and Doyle have not utilized their respective Special Boards of Adjustment to resolve a rules dispute since 1996. ACRE did not challenge the implementation of the ticket machines or attempt to negotiate on the member’s behalf or petition the Carrier for job protection available under provisions of the Railway Labor Act for the implementation of technological improvements that may affect assignments on railroads. Years ago the MTA adopted a pattern bargaining system for its collective agencies. ACRE managed to take a good contract negotiated by Long Island Railroad UTU General Chairman, Mike Canino, and alters it almost beyond recognition. ACRE overpaid for their agreement, especially by including a co-payment provision for new employees for their health and welfare benefits. This agreement provides a springboard for the MTA to seek co-payment of health and welfare benefits from all employees in the next round of bargaining.

If the MTA desires concessions from labor organizations, the agency should approach the issues in a forthright and honest manner instead of using a company dominated union to contravene the collective bargaining process. The “business decision” by the MTA to compensate Doyle and Bottalico in violation of the Railway Labor Act has spawned a division of labor in the MTA and this practice portends union breaking capabilities.

Sincerely,


Art May