Items 1 and 2 of this synopsis address the references in your June 4, 2007 reply of investigations conducted by the MTA Inspector General and National Mediation Board (NMB), and union involvement for a solution of this issue is a union dispute.

Item 1:

ACRE submitted representation “A” cards to the National Mediation Board (NMB) on 12/17/99. A tabulation of ballots was scheduled for the end of February 2000. Shortly before this tabulation, a UTU Vice President received an anonymous package containing payroll documents for various, at the time, UTU and BLE officers promoting ACRE. The records indicated financial assistance was provided ACRE by the MTA to promote the organization. The information was received too late to impede the representation process.

A course of action was discussed by several UTU officers and it was decided to submit a complaint to the MTA Inspector General (copy enclosed). Within several weeks the Inspector General responded that the matter was a “payroll glitch”. The UTU officer retained this response. This was the only contact between the UTU and the Inspector General's office.

The receipt of these documents and subsequent anonymous mailings of similar material propelled the UTU, BLE, other International Unions, and the AFL-CIO to become advocates for a resolution of this issue. The violation of Railway Labor Act tenets and misuse of public funds solution is not a union dispute. If not for this compensation and subsidy issue, the MTA, the Inspector General's office, or any other agency would ever have been contacted by a union concerning ACRE's relationship with the MTA. Union disputes are resolved between the unions involved and rarely involve outside agencies, if an outside entity became necessary to mediate a union dispute, it would not be the MTA or Inspector General.

Anyone supporting the position a union's advocacy for resolution of a misuse of public funds issue is a union dispute is disingenuous.

   A. Letters included in previous mailing: Transportation Trades Department (TTD) of AFL-CIO (International Unions) letter to Senator Clinton, NY State AFL-CIO letter to TTD supporting position. Numerous letters also available for review from other union officers.

Item 2:

The NMB's 2002 investigation was to determine if the MTA's subsidization of ACRE interfered with the representation vote between ACRE and the Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen (BRS). Each representation vote is termed “an investigation” by the NMB. The NMB is not a regulatory agency and its function is not to determine if the MTA's subsidy to ACRE is proper or legal.

In September 2002, after the 8/1/02 Daily News article by Juan Gonzalez concerning ACRE was published, I received a phone call from a BRS officer informing me that Senator Hillary Clinton's office had been contacted by several ACRE officers attempting to justify ACRE's compensation by stating the NMB had “exonerated” ACRE. The Senator's legal staff performed research regarding the NMB's mandate and jurisdiction concerning the subsidy issue. The Senator's staff determined correctly that the NMB did not possess jurisdiction concerning this issue. On 9/30/02 the Senator forwarded a letter to the Secretary of Labor requesting a review of the MTA and ACRE's compensation arrangement and relationship. The Department of Labor's (USDOL) response stated the USDOL was not the proper agency to conduct an investigation. The Senator subsequently supported the language contained in the Omnibus Bill of 2003 prohibiting the MTA from compensating ACRE officers from federal funds.

   A. Included in my initial correspondence were similar letters to the Secretary of Labor from two Congressmen, another U.S. Senator, a NY State Senator, and a letter from a NY Assemblyman to Senator Clinton requesting action on the ACRE compensation issue.

Item 3:

The Internal Control officer's memo. Information is provided in response to items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 in this synopsis. Each item in the memo generates information to rebut the Internal Control office memo, but for the sake of brevity, response is confined to compensation or other support from the MTA issues.

The CJ Wytenus memo to Peter Cannito dated 2/28/02: Response to items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8:

Item 2:

The Crew Management System (CMS) was implemented on 9/8/99. Prior to operation, Metro North UTU and BLE officers, supporters of ACRE, (“A” cards were distributed on Metro North in December 1998 by these officers), occupied “Special Duty” assignment instructing train and engine employees on the CMS. The instruction ceased before 9/8/99. During this training period in 1999, at the time UTU and BLE officers seized any opportunity to promote ACRE during instruction of employees.

   B. ACRE submitted the “A” cards to the NMB on 12/17/99. On that day, Mike Doyle was placed on “light duty” without having been injured or contracting an illness. Anthony Bottalico, at the time on leave of absence status as a full-time UTU General Chairman, was placed in the CMS for payment of holidays on 11/11/99, 11/25/99, 12/24/99, 12/25/99, and 1/1/00. Various UTU and BLE officers were placed on “Special Duty” or “Company Business” to promote ACRE in January 2000 and were compensated in this manner until late February of 2000. Other officers were paid for “Company Business” during this period. The number and frequency increased on two dates, 1/24/00, date of the ACRE informational meeting at the Roosevelt Hotel, and 1/31/00, the date of a UTU meeting. This information was conveyed in the anonymous mailing received by the UTU that generated the complaint forwarded to the MTA Inspector General.

If as Mr. Wytenus states in his memo, these officers were involved in “various aspects of, the design, teaching training, and implementation” of a system that became fully operational five months earlier, then why did Metro North inform the MTA Inspector General's office the matter was a “payroll glitch”. And if it was a “payroll glitch”, why did no other train or engine service employee experience sustained payroll difficulty during this specific time period?

It was common knowledge among the membership that Metro North UTU and BLE officers promoted ACRE full-time during this period.

   C. Enclosed is the declaration of UTU Vice-President Tony Iannone concerning the Roosevelt Hotel issue.

   D. The payroll records indicate the UTU and BLE officers attending the tabulation of the ballots on 2/28/00 and 2/29/00 were compensated in various categories by Metro North. All records are available for review.

Item 3:

   A. The assignments occupied by Doyle, Bottalico, and at the time Sanzari, and DeAndrus, have never been clearly defined by the MTA, except to deny ACRE officers perform union work exclusively. In a 6/21/02 statement faxed to the NMB, Metro North Labor Relations Director assumed this stance. In a subsequent deposition submitted to the NMB, the ACRE Executive Director, James Fahey, indicated ACRE officers in “full-time” release positions perform union work exclusively. Other information has recently been received that indicates that, at least internally, the MTA recognizes the ACRE assignments as full-time union positions, exclusively.

   B. If Exhibit “A” referenced in Item #3 of the memo is an agreement between the MTA and ACRE to compensate Doyle and Bottalico, the ACRE membership have not been provided a copy for review. If Exhibit B is a copy of Rules 37 and 51 for engine and train service employees this agreement was never intended, nor mentions “full-time” release positions.

   C. ACRE never informed the membership of the compensation arrangement during the promotion or implementation of ACRE. It was nine months later that ACRE distributed a letter to the membership “explaining” the salary issue. This letter was replete with misrepresentations of the issue, and included examples of NLRB cases not relevant to the situation. A copy of this letter is available as well as my response, and copies of the NLRB cases ACRE cites as “evidence”.

   D. Subsequent to Mr. Wytenus' memo, in April 2003, Sanzari and DeAndrus were removed from their “release positions” by the MTA and returned to service assignments.

  Apparently the State Comptroller's office, after receiving notification of the 2003 Omnibus Bill prohibiting the MTA from compensating ACRE officers, began requesting information about the ACRE compensation arrangement. Subsequent to the inquiries from the Comptroller's office, Sanzari and DeAndrus' positions were terminated.

  The Comptroller's office determined the situation was a Railway Labor Act issue and the office did not possess jurisdiction.

Item 4:

   A. The compensation received by ACRE officers is a subsidy by the MTA, a violation of the Railway Labor Act, and therefore, improper, and a misuse of public funds.

   B. Language is also included in the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959, Title III indicating these payments are improper, but for different reasons.

Item 5:

   A. After ACRE separated from the UTU and BLE on 3/1/00, Bottalico violated his lease agreement with the Graybar Building for the UTU office space. The Graybar management filed legal action seeking a $209,000 judgment from Bottalico for violating terms of the lease agreement. Subsequently, ACRE could not obtain office space in Manhattan without providing funds the organization did not possess. Copies of the legal position assumed by the Graybar Management and other correspondence concerning this issue are available for review.

   B. In May 2000, ACRE was permitted to occupy a portion of the 6 th floor, Hall “D”, in GCT. It was common knowledge among ACRE members that to contact an ACRE officer the member had to visit the 6 th floor of “D” hall or call extension 6068 on a Metro North phone. ACRE occupied this space until early August 2000, when the ACRE office was opened.

   C. In the initial ACRE newsletter, dated Spring 2000, an advertisement was included notifying members that desired to purchase job protection insurance to contact ACRE Division 1, President Bryan Marcella at extension 6068. A copy is available for review.

   D. There is speculation concerning ACRE's ability to obtain office space in the Graybar Building subsequent to the Graybar's legal action and the terms of any settlement arrangement between Bottalico and Graybar management.

Item 6:

It is reasonable to expect the MTA not to be able to respond to conversations between ACRE officers and members.

The 12/8/00 letter circulated by ACRE to the membership states ACRE had negotiated an agreement for Bottalico and Doyle to be compensated by the MTA for “full-time” release positions.

Details of this agreement have never been released for member review. If this agreement provides for, as Mr. Wytenus states in his memo, “compensation to these officers for services performed for Metro North is in our interests”, the members and the public have the right to be informed of all aspects of this arrangement.

Item 8:

   A. Doyle was paid in a “light duty” capacity from 12/17/99 until late March 2000. Bottalico was paid in a “training” capacity from mid-February 2000, after being removed from office by the UTU, until late March 2000. At that time, Doyle and Bottalico were paid in a “company business” capacity. DeAndries and Sanzari were added to the “full-time” positions list in late summer of 2000, also in a “company business” capacity.

   B. After ACRE distributed the 12/8/00 letter, I responded on 1/2/01, debunking each aspect of ACRE's arguments. A copy of this letter is available. Within two weeks Bottalico, and soon after, the other three officers, pay designations were changed.

   C. After I released my 1/2/01 letter, I began receiving additional information concerning the compensation issue, several times from anonymous sources.

Several months later, I received recent payroll documents. Included were payroll records from early 2001 for Doyle and Bottalico. I have enclosed a page from Bottalico's pay records.

Note that on 1/15/01, Bottalico was paid in a “company business” capacity. Under the heading of “type” an “N” is entered for “non working”. On 1/16/01, Bottalico now has an “assignment” number and under “type” is now a “W” for working. Bottalico's job number was changed again two days later, to the designation he currently occupies.

I have enclosed a copy of my 2/21/02 letter to Representative Antoinette Boucher. I will endeavor to explain the genesis of the UTU outline forwarded to CDOT.

Sometime in the late summer of 2001, I received several copies of e-mails anonymously in the mail bearing postmarks in Connecticut. The e-mails were about activity and previously held public forums regarding the State of Connecticut and the MTA. A type written note suggested that the UTU should contact Representative Boucher's office. During my initial conversation with Representative Boucher, she mentioned that she had received an anonymous package notifying her of the ACRE situation. I inquired about details included in the package. Most of the details were accurate, some were fundamentally correct but not presented in a proper format. The Representative requested that I forward an outline to her office and members of her committee and also to CDOT. I explained that I may not have authority to forward information to CDOT, it was decided that a UTU Vice President would forward the information.

I submitted the subsequent 2/21/02 letter to the Representative to clarify UTU or other unions involvement with this issue and to ensure our position became a matter of record.

Summary :

The Metro North Internal Control Officer states in his memo, “Metro North benefited from the job assignments, which resulted in substantial cost savings to the company”.

The only commodity ACRE controls that may produce cost savings to the Carrier is the organization's policing of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

ACRE's mandate, by law and from the membership is to represent member interests first and foremost. The MTA should be compelled to release a detailed definition and record of ACRE's cost saving measures for the Carrier.

Sincerely,

Art May,

Metro North Conductor

UTU Coordinator