Before

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

(AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 23, 2007)

ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE

RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AS AMENDED

PETER R. MEYERS

Neutral Member and Chairman


In the Matter of the Arbitration
 between:
 BROTHERHOOD OF
 MAINTENANCE OF WAY
 EMPLOYEES, DIVISION OF THE
 INTERNATIONAL
 BROTHERHOOOD OF Health Care Cost Sharing Dispute
 TEAMSTERS,
 Organization,
 And
 COLORADO AND WYOMING
 RAILWAY COMPANY,
 Carrier.

Appearances on behalf of the Organization


Appearances on behalf of the Carrier


This matter came to be heard before Neutral Peter R. Meyers on the 15`x' day of May 2007 at the offices of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60606-4101. Mr. Steven V. Powers presented on behalf of the Organization, and Messrs. Mark Dabney and Mark D. Selbert presented on behalf of the Carrier.
 Statement of the Issue:








with the BMWF anti with nthpr (lranni7ntinne ranrPCantina rliffprpnt amn1nNrpa arn_nc

 The Carrier entered into Agreements with the BMWE, the TCU-Cannen, and the TCU-
 rtcrl_...t,.. --,l-a -n ..1_-__ ,· ,<
 ~1~1hS uaaL actucu. alt ulc11-outSta11U1Rg issues In llie Section 6 notices involving these
 Organizations. The Agreement between the Carrier and the BMWE includes a provision
 calling for covered employees to make a monthly payment, an "employee participation
 amount," to offset the cost of the employees' health insurance premiums. The
 Agreement also contained a "me too" provision, which specifies that BMWE-represented
 employees would not contribute more toward the cost of their Health and Welfare
 insurance than would any other Carrier employees covered by a national health and
 welfare plan. The Agreements between the Carrier and the TCU-Carmen and the TCU
 Clerks, respectively, contain identical Health and Welfare provisions, including identical
 "me, too" clauses. On or about April 26, 2004, the Carrier and the TCU-Clerks entered
 into a letter of interpretation that specifically addressed the meaning of the "me, too"
 language in the Health and Welfare nrovision contained in the. Aarf'.fm(-nt he-twPPn the
 Carrier and the TCU-Clerks.
Effective January 1, 2005, Carrier employees represented by the UTU were enrolled in thPTTTTTNntinnal T4PAth Plnn xvhirh is nrlminietararl hvTTnitprl T-Tanlthrara
Pursuant to the Agreement between the Carrier and the UTU, the UTU-represented
empmycc~__Y______ _ _i1 ' 7 , i
 pmycc~ were not uu77gaieu ro make any contribution toward the cost of their health insurance premiums. Relying on the "me, too" provision in its local contract, the TCUClerks filed a grievance asserting that its covered employee-members should not be required to contribute to their health insurance premiums. The Carrier and the TCUClerks ultimately agreed that the TCU-represented Clerks would not contribute toward their health coverage, and these employees were subsequently reimbursed for the contributions that they had made subsequent to January 2005.
BMWE's General Chairman also requested that the employee participation amount for BMWE-represented employees be adjusted to match that of the UTUrepresented employees, in that this was the lowest employee participation amount on the property. The Carrier refused this request, and it has continued to deduct an employee's contribution for health cwe nremi»me in the amnn nt of X97 d'A nar mnnth fnr PT\/TUTF_ represented employees.

iii uivi vv ~ ~cicaiLUi L1tUU 0. grle~an~e aSSC7-tllig LLlaL MVI W T,-iepICSCIILLeU employees should no longer have to contribute toward the cost of their health care premiums under the "me, too" provision of the Agreement between the Carrier and the BMWE. The Carrier denied the grievance.
3
 Applicable Contractual Provision


                aY«<rtl- -1·· M11lJVLW,4y0.114··

                                        Y VLl llll~ 1\0.11YY 0.j'

    y_ Company and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees


      Health and Welfare:


      Once the calculations have been made and the amount chosen, the employee participation amount will not change until the Agreement under which the emplovee particinatinn amount wac ohncpn rp.nnirae rlnina en nr for a n~rinri of twelve (12) months. At the point of readjusting the employee participation amount, the carrier will review all of the National Health and Wealth plans on the property to ascertain the lowest employee participation amount and the l,.__...,.. ._.:·· _ __~__ _ , r_ ...,_ , ivwc~I will apply aS SGL tui-ui aoove.


Applicable Letter of Interpretation

Letter dated April 26 2004 from Ted P Stafford President of the

Allied Services Division/TCU to Franklin Lloyd Vice President of the Colorado &

Wyoming Railway Companv


      April 26, 2004


      Mr. Franklin Lloyd, Vice President

      Colorado & Wyoming Railway Company

      P.O. Box 316


      T_l7" n

      rueolo, l.u b1OV2


      Dear Sir:


      This will have reference to our Agreement of April 26, 2004 and in particular the section under the heading with Health and Welfare.


          During our telephone conversation of flip tiat~ we, dismissed the meaning of

      this section, and I wanted to make certain that I have a clear understanding of the

      intent of this section. It is my understanding that as of the date of this agreement

      there are four (4) Unions having National Agreements containing employee cost


                            4

    sharing arrangements which you have referred to as "employee participation" that have various amounts of cost sharing and further that TCU has the lowest being G74 7,1 nar mnntlh


    It is my further understanding that the $79.74 will increase on July 1, 2004 to $91.32 and is subject to further increases or reduction depending on what happens in the next round of National Negotiations on health and W eifare. However, should any other Union, who has reached an agreement with the C & W have a lesser amount of cost sharing, that rate will the (sic) be applied to ASD/TCU employees at the time of signing by that Union and further be subject to review and possible adjustment at the time that Union's Health and Welfare is adjusted Nationally. In addition the Carrier will also review the cost sharing at least once every 12 months to determine if a lower amount of cost sharing is available and if sn makp. the, annrnnriatp. arli_cttnpnt


    As an example you indicated that another Union was close to signing and

    that they are expected to sign May 15th and that they have a cost sharing of

    N^In nn <r ___ _ _ AA n, , , ., mnn nn t , St

    .n /v.vv. Ion ~tateU that trim you would change our amount to the a /v.w June r

    and that rate would stay in effect until their National adjustment date on cost

    sharing would come due or in another comparison would be made, and if another

    contract had a lower rate our cost sharing would be adjusted to the lower rate.


      If you agree that the above represents a correct interpretation of the Health and Welfare section please sign in the space provided below and return one copy to my office.


      Respectfully,


      /e/Twl P C1-offn,~i P,-o~;~7o.,f

      , ,m n va+ u . ~ v"uvmx, a a,.,om.m

      Allied Services Division/TCU


      I Concur:


      /s/Franldin Lloyd, Vice President


The Organization's Position
      The Organization initially contends that the "me, too" language in the parties'


Agreement is clear and unambiguous. The nrgani7atinn asserts that this langnaLe

 requires the Carrier to review all of the National Health and Welfare plans on the

                            5

property to determine which has the lowest employee participation amount. The lowest

 cnr+ amnnnt then -will annlv ae eat fnrth in flip "ina tnn" nrnvicinn

      The Organization argues that following the adoption of the April 27, 2004,

Agreement between the Carrier and the 151W w E, the Carrier entered into an Agreement
 with the UTU. By letter dated October 19, 2004, the Carrier and the UTU resolved the
 details associated with the enrollment of the Carrier's UTU-represented employees into
 the health insurance program under the UTU National Agreement. The Organization
 emphasizes that there is no dispute that the Carrier's UTU-represented employees
 enrolled in a "National Health and Welfare plan on the property" with an "employee
 participation amount" of "no cost to the employees." The Organization maintains that
 there also is no dispute that the Carrier's UTU-represented employees continue to enjoy
 health insurance under the UTU National Agreement with no employee contribution
 deducted from their wages. The Organization therefore contends that there can be no
 question but that as of January 1, 2005, "the lowest employee participation amount" for

 amnlnvar c pnrnllprl in a Vatinnal Naalth anfl XAlalfarn nlan nn flip nrnnartv hnc hrpan "nn
 .. ___r_ _, __ __.u____ __ -. _ ., ,._ _ _ _._w., - _ w , t, .,a __., r_ t.__.~ __~_ _ __ ,

 cost."

      Tl_ U kJI_gW__-_i: ___ _ .1 . 1- .1 A - . 1- .1_ !'1_....'. _.. _ _ .l

mG mgWu/-auun riser i5 may oecause tae Agreemem Oeiwecti me k-arncr aau BMWE requires that the lowest employee participation amount be applied for BMWErepresented employees, there can be no question that the clear language of the Agreement requires that the employee participation amount for the Carrier's BMWE-represented employees should have been "at no cost to the employees" as of January 1, 2005. The Organization insists that the Carrier therefore should be required to cease all Health and

                            6

                          L


Isajlmd ar(p st,m djxeajo 11 Ieul saijzuSis avauej jt,ojluapj sup JO nojsnIouj all Imp slsTSUf

uojlt,zTut,Sxo arjs -aout,msui axzjjaM put, Tpeag jo anssi uourtuoo arjI no a2eaunj jt,oiluapt uo xarxxeo arp uijm luauraaxgt, paqot,az Ijt, qxajD-nDZ arjl put, `uaurst,D-jI3Z

ail `qMwg;)M'oseosTT41ulltqlsozisaildmouoilvzrLm2jooqI -xaizre,)aril uzo~j jt,ap xallaq t, ujt,lqo of ajqe ST SIluanbasqns uoqt,zrul03zo xaqlout, jj pazjjt,nad SjanjloaJ3a aq lou


TTTnn ,TT~TTT__Tsv TM TTnvnT n, TTOTTnMTn'RTr-~ TqTTT MT11 ,Cn naTTTacaT(jaT aaa,C()TCTTTTQ 1vTn fTTTTnCCT2 LL:"' 1"°"`°°'"" V "" `L" "" ", " . . ""'-v -a--L, __L r_,_ ___._____ --____I______ ,__L, __: ______

    6q 2ujujt,2xeq UT axt, suotlt,zjut,j3xo ajdjljnur axarjm suojlt,jlofau lot,xluoo jo luaurajllas


I c- q m le d0q4 jo S~SuCufiu;jy q4!M
    Luloict oTp joj s mo I [u o s r te-jo -u -qons ve-L [74 ut 'I-z)-V jo eq A'-U -[-L - - -


lualszsuoo si asn-ejo ,ool `our_ a rjons 3o asodxnd all It,qj saru2xt, uojlt,zjut,sxp aqZ

    quaumax&y axejjaAA, pus qljt,ag IEMORlN t, xapun paxanoo saaSojdum zarpo Rut, ut,rp aout,xnsuj qljeaq xoj axons Sled pjnom sluauraax2y asar4l xapun pa.zanoo


      saaSojdura OU jt,ql sapinoxd qozqm `asnejo ,ool `cur_ cures ar l apnjoui sluauraaxBy

    asaql jo az)zql jjt, `xanoazoru `.luauzaax2yy~jg arjl uj sseaddt, ~t,rjl «axt,jjam put, IjlIt,aH_ pajljlua uojsjnoxd aurt,s Imo aql ujt,luoo qloq s}jxajD-tlDs all put, uauut,D-IIol arP

    tRrm sluauraaxSV s,xaixxeD arp It,ql ino gutod uojjt,zjue2xp arql quauraaBy gjy~Wg aril se pouad autt,s arp Smznp zaTZje:) aT qlIm palt,goBau azam Imp sjuauraa.z2t, Sutult,Bzt,q


      an1haTT00 aidillnur auljo Ixaluoo arp uj snon2rqmt,un put, xeajo sj lualuj 1t,rp `lualuj


      ,sajlsed mp uxaosjp of zapxo ui luaazaazSy ~sarpt,d aLja jo a2t,aut,j majo aT puosaq


    ZT~ 1, r~OO_nnTT,T enTTTT nron~ nTn TT TVTTn nTTOTTTnn m TTO Cnnrq TMTTV7TTTro'iTf-~ QTTT

    V_L _l-Mo_o-,: Sr-ti r_--a ,.n,y; ,,.n, r» ,» .. , _ . ~ _ ;,.,_. ,.


                *past,ao ant,q suoponpap asoiR jpun `SOOZ `j kenut,r uroxj axgjaM


pyre rjljt,ag zoo suojlnqlxluoo aanojuma s$ palanpap n(snynaxu slunvure ((e .LUG aaanu(uuLa

        pjt,s asxnqunai of put, saaSojdura paluasaxdax-gA~Wg iuoxj suoilonpap axejjaAk

intention that the employees represented by each of these Organizations would be required to pay no more for their health coverage than any other Carrier employee covered by a National Health and Welfare Agreement. In addition, the parties intended

 tT..,4 .o._,h;»,* ., 0»4 hoes ro .,11 -4ho~ _.,_4;- l._.7 ~V~o~tlol7 *< n_lrl »nt »a»oh~a t1,a
 UlUL 1VUVtuttE', Ult agreetllVttV VV1VtV Utl VU1V1 j.741UVJ 11UU JVLVtVU VYUIV itVV rlVitwat<..V utV members of any of the Organizations should another Organization be granted more favorable terms with regard to its members' "employee participation amount.""
 The Organization insists that when the Carrier and the UTU agreed to enroll the Carrier's UTU-represented employees into the UTU's National Health and Welfare plan effective January 1, 2005, at no cost to the employees, the Carrier effectively penalized its BMWE-represented employees by giving a better deal on this common issue to the UTU-represented employees. The Organization argues that such a result is contrary to the purpose for which the "me, too" language was negotiated.
 The Organization goes on to assert that the intent of the parties also is manifestly clear from the Carrier's own interpretation of the Agreement language as it has been applied to the Carrier's employees represented by the TCU-Clerks. The Organization emphasizes that the Health and Welfare section of its Agreement is identical to that of the

 TCTTClarlro A rmaamc»t TI, (lvnn»;nn4;n» »n;»4n n_4 *T,o~ thora ie »n (lie»»ta that 1-ha
 mv-v.mtw < v btwutvuL. to v. vt~ulwuLVVUYVUlw VuV uvuL utvtv t~ uV UvurL.La L....v w..<
 Carrier ceased withholding employee contributions and has refunded amounts that
 previously were withheld for those of its employees covered by the T CU-Clerics
 Agreement. Addressing the Carrier's assertion that the TCU-Clerks Agreement is to be
 treated differently because of the April 26, 2004, Letter of Interpretation, the
 Organization maintains that this Letter simply restates the "me, too" provision that is

                            8

written into the Agreement and gives a hypothetical example about its application. The

 nrg?anizatinn armtea that althnnuh the Carrier hac attPmnted to defend itc aetinnc by

 mischaracterizing the April 26, 2004, Letter of Interpretation, it is evident that this Letter

 d__,. __ __t:L.~Y__ T~TT X7_..7_ A _ mL I ~7_-~t_I_ T _
 UUGJ 11Ut 111VUlly UIG 11.U-Clerks Agreement. Me Orgainzadou ItIsl.Sts Lum MIS Letter merely states the intent of the parties with regard to the employee participation requirement, and it confirms the Carrier's interpretation of the Health and Welfare section that is contained in the TCU-Clerks Agreement and in the BMWE Agreement.
 The Organization submits that the Carrier's interpretation of the Agreement language as expressed in the April 26, 2004, Letter of Interpretation, and its implementation of this language as to employees represented by tile TCU-Clerks, represents the parties' intent when they negotiated this language. The Organization insists that it is absurd to argue that the identical contract language means one thing in the TCU-Clerks Agreement and quite the opposite in the BMWE Agreement. The Organization maintains that the only reasonable conclusion is that the identical clauses of the two Agreements rnu-t mean the came thing and lead m the 921ne, result. The Organization emphasizes that the identical contract language in the BMWE Agreement

 .... 7 M1.,. mr`77 (~t t , n ._ . _~ - TT-_t,t_ _-.t TT7~iC- ,. : .- : ~ A
 an L11G l 1. V-1.1~1riJ Cifree111Gl11 GVlll%el~llllg 71Ga1Ul MW VV e11d1U 1JJUGS were r1erUL10.LGU
 contemporaneously. In fact, the evidence shows that the Carrier's negotiator knew that the "employee participation" provision was meant to apply exactly as the Carrier is applying it in relation to the TCU-Clerks. The Organization submits that the Health and Welfare section of the BMWE Agreement cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean anything other than what it means under the TCU-Clerks Agreement.

                            9

The Organization argues that because the Carrier has interpreted this contract In71g11aOP t(1 Apply to the 1mvPC1' "PmninliPP n.~r~irinafinn~ omnnn* nn 47-,e n o,-Fn_ __ _l.l,_~ .,., _.._..._...._,. ....r.Vya.: r,u.,,.wruuvu uauvwm vu yam. Yropu:an currently "no cost," that interpretation of the contract language also must apply to the

 n________>_ r«,r«m
 ~ alucr a arm w 1i-represented employees.
 The Organization contends that the Carrier is attempting to mischaracterize the April 26, 2004, letter as a separate agreement with the TCU-Clerks. The Organization maintains that an examination of this letter reveals that by its very terms, it is NOT an agreement. Instead, a plain reading of this letter demonstrates that its purpose simply was to confirm that the TCU-Clerks' understanding of the contract provision matched that of the Carrier (and that of the BMWE). The Organization insists that there can be no question that by signing and returning this letter, the Carrier confirmed its concurrence as to what the Health and Welfare section mean; the Carrier was NOT entering into a separate agreement with the TCU-Clerks that bestowed a greater benefit under their agreement. The Organization emphasizes that because the Health and Welfare section in

      T-I IPrKC' AarPPmPNf 9~ 7l~Pn*mnI fn +I,o - - 4- 1JTilAAT. /A rv ..4 41... A....:7

      ~. ..~ ..t,.aa v.a~ i~ au~iiu~ul w 1114 Vrle 111 ulli 171YIVYL A~',1GG111~111, 1116 ~tJ111

26, 2004, letter necessarily indicates the Carrier's concurrence that the letter represents a
 correct interpretation of the Health and Welfare section of the 13MWE Agreement. The
 Organization argues that this letter should be viewed as authoritative as to what the Carrier intended the contract language to mean.
 The Organization additionally points out that the Carrier's submission misstates the current amount that it is deducting and misstates the remedy requested herein. The

 Organization acknowledges that during the handling on the property, it was established

                            10

that the amount initially deducted from the pay of BMWE-represented employees as a

 "nartirinatinn amnimt" ,mrlar tl,a A nraaman* .,»e Q'70 7d r.Ar mnntl, Tl,a Ornani~atinr,

 emphasizes, however, that by 2006, that amount had risen to $97.53 per month. The Organization argues "hat the Carrier never disputed the actual monthly amount that it has been deducting from the employees' pay.
 The Organization then contends that the $1421.82 figure cited in the Carrier's submission represents the Organization's May 2, 2006, calculation of excess employee contributions that had been deducted from employee pay up to that time. The Organization points out that the Carrier has continued to deduct excess health insurance contributions since that time, and those amounts also must be returned to the employees. The Organization then argues that if there is any question as to the monetary remedy, it would be appropriate to instruct the parties to conduct a joint search of Carrier records to finally determine the amounts involved for each Claimant.

      The Organization asserts that pursuant to the current Agreement, the Carrier


imme?fiiat f-,w m»ct (-t acp all rlarlnrtinne frnm flip _o<r of ite RTrfAIJF_ra_raeantarl am_lnxtaac
 _______r____~ __» _ __ _ » » »» _ _ -.- t,wJ . - -- - r , _ --e-y-._,

 for Health and Welfare contributions. In addition, the Organization maintains that the
 ,. , appropriate remedy ror m.e Carrier's violation of the Agreement is for the Carrier to reimburse each of the Claimants for airy and all amounts previously deducted as an employee contribution for Health and Welfare benefits commencing from January 2005 and continuing until such deductions are discontinued.
 The Organization ultimately contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety.

                            ll

The Carrier's Position
      The Carrier initiallv rnntt-.ndc thnt the RMWF_ranr~e~ntarl PmnlnvPPa nrp not


entitled to a reduction in the employee participation amount with regard to payment for

 1r__14_ _ A «r_ln_ 1r.

nealul ailu w cuare oenerns under their Agreement with the Carrier. The Carrier asserts that there is no dispute that the Carrier had the right to deduct the contributions under the language of the Agreement, and the Carrier further maintains that the fact that UTU-

represented employees and TCU-Clerks did not have to contribute to their health plan is irrelevant to the BMWE's Agreement with the Carrier. The Carrier emphasizes that the reference in the Agreement to the lowest rates of all National Health and Welfare Plans set the rate for BMWE-represented employees at $79.74 per month, which is what they have been paying since May 2004. The Carrier points out that there has been no change to the Agreement that would require the BMWE-represented employees to pay less than $79.74 per month toward their Health Plan.


      The Carrier argues that the Organization's position is totally unsupported by any


aranahlP 1nte.rllrptatlnn nfthp nPrtinpnt nnrl rAPC7ant AITrPPm~nt lanm79(7P The f arri~r
 _a_~___ ______c.___.___ __.,_ _ ,r., , .b. ., , ~. ..b ,.b my vu.mva

 emphasizes that in view of the clear and unambiguous language in the Health and
 ccr_tc___ n_.__r.._ __ _r, v A
 vv ciiaic DcucriLs poitiuii ur uie parties' Agreement, progression of this matter to
 arbitration constitutes improper use of the grievance process in that the Organization is
 attempting to gain what it did not negotiate. The Carrier insists that there is absolutely
 no contractual or practical basis to argue that the Organization is entitled to the "me, too"
 provision of the TCU-Clerks' Agreement.

      The Carrier maintains that in this matter, there is only the equity argument that if


                            12

the UTU and TCU-Clerks do not have to pay, then neither should the BMWE-represented emulovees. The Carrier emnhn-i7.&.c that nnmprnnc Rnarrl Awarrlc hnld that Rnnrclc nrP not convened to determine whether an issue should be decided on such grounds. If the
 ....,..._..L:.. a:_.___.._ _ _,_ _ ,,, , , ., i ,>
 p...:at6lcJ LV MIS U1JpU1,G GdrlllOt reA.Grl ail eClUltaD1B SO1LILlOn, LL 1S Dey0I1Q Lnls BOaTQ 5
 authority to impose one. The Carrier emphasizes that the Agreement specifically
 provides that BMWE-represented employees will share in the cost of the H&W insurance
 at a rate of $79.74 per month, which is the lowest calculated amount from all the National
 Agreements. The Carrier asserts that this language ties the cost-sharing payments to the
 National Health Plans.
 The Carrier goes on to contend that although the UTU-represented employees were enrolled in the UTU National Health Plan in January 2005, and they currently are not obligated to make monthly payments, this is because the UTU-represented employees were not enrolled in any plan prior to January 2005. The Carrier argues that it was beneficial to the Carrier to enroll those employees in the UTU plan. The Carrier points

 nut that nart of the haruain tuith T TTT T tvac that theca amnlnxraae ,vnnl(1 not have to
 _ _. _ _ __. _ t ___ _ _ _ .___ _ ___ o-___ .. _.,__ - - - .. __ _...». ,...,.._., - -y- j --- .. --- «... _.,.... - -

 participate in cost-sharing for 2005, even though the UTU National Health Plan includes

 ~..4 sl__-_- .. 4-.~L.t~-._ d_ _t : -1__ _ . , ' , , T AT<T a cost-JIlMlilg ~,DnuIUUUVn uiai is L11C Same atnounL Deing paLU Dy ~iviwn-represented employees. The Carrier further asserts that its March 2006 Section 6 Notice to the UTU included cost-sharing for their health plan.
 The Carrier then argues that the April 23, 2004, letter of interpretation between the TCU-Clerks and the Carrier applies only to the TCU-Clerks; this was a local agreement made with very limited application. The Carrier insists that the BMWE did not negotiate

                            13

such a letter of interpretation with any Carrier officer, and the Carrier maintains that it

 never nntirinnt e-.rl that the TCTT_Clarlrc' latter u7nnld nnnhr ac it rlnae Tlif- f arrif-.r accarte
 ___. __ T_____r____ _____ ___ _ __ _.______., __.-__ . _ rY_~ , , ,._, ____ _______ _ ,._ _

 that the BMWE does not have such an agreement, and BMWE-represented employees

 ., continue to contribute to cost-sharing at the extremely low rate of $7y.74 per month.
 The Carrier insists that it has not violated any Agreement provisions, and it is in full compliance with the Railway Labor Act. The BMWE did not negotiate a local "me, too" agreement, and the contributions made by BMWE-represented employees were proper under the Agreement. The Carrier emphasizes that is has no obligation to refund the contributions to its BMWE-represented employees or to cease requiring the monthly contribution. The Carrier argues that the Organization is attempting to escape the obligation for cost-sharing that is clearly and unambiguously provided for in the Agreement.
 The Carrier ultimately contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety.

      The nartiPC ht-.ina nnahlp to rp.mlvp their dianntp this matter rnme- hf-fnna thic


Board.

 r.z_aelp
 1 lltulll,J
      $~'


In this dispute over the proper interpretation and application of the parties' Agreement, the Organization bears the burden of proof. This Board's analysis of the parties' opposing positions must, of course, be based upon the relevant language of that Agreement. The Health and Welfare provisions in the Agreements between the Carrier, on the one side, and the BMWE, TCU-Carmen, and TCU-Clerks, on the other, all contain

                            14

identical language. The three Agreements include identical descriptions of the manner in which employee contributions toward health insurance is to be calculated, and these three Agreements also contain identical "me, too" language.

      T,. Lam_ fun" rlo_oo ;., +ho 1~TifAETV A .* ,.,+ ., +....,o ..~+L.o :.70,-.+;...,1 ..7.,.._._

111V ttav, wV V~LUJ4 ttt 1114 ~1~1YY L C1.~,leel11- ~tL, GLJ 13 LLLL~ V1 Lll41~411L14at l:lUUJlJJ in the other two Agreements, specifies that the "employee participation amount" will be the "lowest calculated amount from all the National Agreements." At the time that the BMWE and the Carrier entered into their agreement, the "lowest calculated amount from all the National Agreements" was the $79.74 monthly contribution set forth in the Agreements between the Carrier and the TCU-Clerks and the TCU-Carmen.
 It is important to bear in mind why "me, too" provisions are employed in situations such as the one at issue. The Carrier's various employee groups are represented, for collective bargaining purposes, by a number of different Organizations, including the BMWE. In order to make pattern bargaining possible, the Carrier and these different Organizations typically incorporate "me, too" clauses that allow all Organization-represented employees to benefit from the most favorable terms on certain common issues that ultimately are negotiated between the Carrier and any of the
 l>r~rani~atinne ranracant:r,n :*n o *~lr.<.oo~ T1~3 **. n +1..,+... ..4'+tlo o *JtUYo~3 ., VaU.wraiuuuvuv avNa.vJVtiuttb itJ Yt111J1V~'WJ. 1111) tllealtJ L11QL 11VLle Vl 1,114 41T1111V.Y41.J Gre effectively penalized if the Organization representing them reaches the first agreement with the Carrier, but then another Organization subsequently negotiates terms on a common issue that are more favorable to its members. A "me, too" clause therefore serves as an incentive to both the Carrier and the Organization to diligently pursue negotiations to an agreement, without waiting to see the results of other collective

                            15

bargaining negotiations. With pattern bargaining as a fixture in the railroad industry,

 M(,tnn" r.1n11Cf.C PCCPnfn11V arP nPPPCCar17 to malr~ thie f1MP of rl~rcntiotinr1xnr~r
 ____, ___ ____. __ _.,. ___._ __, - _ _,._._,wj __w__ - .7 F-
      In _b.,.~._.. .._..t.


      In the instant situation, the record conclusively demonstrates that the Health and


c17_1c__._ _ r .1
 VvG11a1G SeCtiOTi Ul Me B1Vl W!J Agreement, including me --me, I00~' Clause, contains the very same language that appears in both the TCU-Clerks and the TCU-Carmen Agreements. Accordingly, there is no discernible basis on the face of these Agreements for finding anything other than that these provisions all should be interpreted and applied in the same way. The Carrier nevertheless has asserted that Health and Welfare provision of the TCU-Clerks Agreement should be interpreted differently than the identical provisions in the other two Agreements. The stated rationale for the Carrier's assertion that the TCU-Clerks Agreement should be handled differently than either the BMWE Agreement or the TCU-Carmen Agreement is the existence of the April 26, 2004, letter between the TCU-Clerks and the Carrier.

      The only way for the Carrier's argument to succeed is if the April 26, 2004, letter


Serves to n1tPr nr mnljiAv tha T-TP alth nn rl AXTAlf..ra l.,nm,.,*o fhn*W n - fho TM T 0i-l-
      __ ~____ _._ ..__ ~ .~ _ v., ,._, .o wouv acuabuxuy. uaw uppear~ um. wv-v.t.t1~


Agreement, thereby making that provision different than the Health and Welfare sections

 _r~t_ nrXatm ___~ I_rT r7
 Ul tLllC nlV1 Vv Z MIL, t CU-Carmen Agreements. A Careful review or mis letter reveals, however, that it is not a modifying Agreement between the Carrier and the TCU-Clerks. Instead, the April 26, 2004, letter is a restatement of the "me, too" clause in the Health and Welfare section, and a confirmation that the Carrier and the TCU-Clerks have the same understanding of the meaning and intent of this "me, too" clause.

      This Board finds that the April 26, 2004, letter does not serve to modify or alter, in


                            16

any way, the Agreement between the Carrier and the TCU-Clerks. This Board holds that the HPAth and WP1farf- qPrtinn rnntninPd in that AarPPmant inrhiriina the "mt- tnn" clause, therefore must be considered as remaining identical to what appears in both the

 TIT.fXT~. A _. ._Ji1__ "77 /'17 t7
 DPI vv n r-,greeriieiit auu LUC i k ..U-~-.armen Agreement. The only reasonable conclusion from this is that the Health and Welfare sections in all three of these agreements, being identical, must be interpreted in the same way.
 There is nothing in the April 26, 2004, letter that justifies treating the TCU-Clerks Agreement differently than the BMWE and TCU-Carmen Agreements in connection with the application of the Health and Welfare section. The letter's description of the agreedupon meaning and intent of the "me, too" clause in the TCU-Clerks Agreement applies with equal force to the identical "me, too" clauses in the other two Agreements. If the April 26, 2004, letter accurately sets forth the Carrier's understanding of the language of the "me, too" clause in the TCU-Clerks Agreement, then it is reasonable to conclude that this letter accurately sets forth the Carrier's understanding of the very same language that anneals in the BMWR nnrl TCTTXarmen AoTPPmontc

      The evidentiary record in this matter and the language that appears in the


(1
 m..g.-aM..:...aUU._b A,_ .7L7_4__/'_..._:___J_____ yC__JM_UI_~U_:
 m~awu b ~greeWent wuu me ~.amci uucti uut support ally mumg maw c iiistaiit Agreement may be interpreted in a different manner than the TCU-Clerks Agreement, or that the Carrier ever had a different understanding or intent with regard to the language of the Health and Welfare section, including the "me, too" clause, than it had in connection with the TCU-Clerks Agreement. Although the BMWE and the TCU-Carmen did not exchange any letters with the Carrier that, like the April 26, 2004, letter between the

                            17

Carrier and the TCU-Clerks, confirms the parties' understanding of the "me, too" clause, there can be no serious doubt that the meaning and intent of the. "me, too" clause in +,he Organization's Agreement with the Carrier is identical to what is expressed in the April 26, 2004, letter.
 In light of these considerations, and in accordance with the plain meaning of the language contained in the Health and Welfare section of the Organization's Agreement with the Carrier, this Board finds that the Carrier-UTU agreement calling for UTUrepresented employees to be enrolled in the UTU National Health Plan, and without any obligation to make any contribution toward the cost of their health insurance premiums, should have triggered the "me, too" clause in the Organization's Agreement with the Carrier, just as it triggered the identical "me, too" clause in the Agreement between the Carrier and the TCU-Clerks.

This Board holds that just as the TCU-Clerks no longer were obligated to contribute toward the cost of their health insurance once the UTU Agreement was implemented, the Carrier's BMWE-represented employees also should not ha~e beer'. obligated to contribute toward the cost of their health insurance. So long as the Carrier's T_TTT_T-_reprecented e7-nploy.eeJ 0r MiyioyecsrepreSGIIted by aI7y Other -urga117Zatlon, QO not have to contribute toward the cost of participation in their Organization's National Health Plan, their ti-le "me, too" clause in the Health and Welfare section requires that the Carrier cease deducting contributions toward the cost of their health insurance from the pay of its BMWE-represented employees.


      The language of the Organization's Agreement, when compared with the language


                            18

of the TCU-Clerks Agreement, conclusively establishes that the Carrier's BMWE
 represented el'nplnyee~ ~hvuid ha`v'e bccit ucated in plel'.lsely tile same lllauner as the
 TCU-Clerks in connection with the issue of employee contributions toward the cost of
 heaiul care. This Board finds that as of January 2005, when the UTU Agreement
 providing health care coverage under the UTU's National Health Plan at no cost to the
 UTU-represented employees, the Agreement between the Carrier and BMWE required
 the Carrier to immediately cease deducting health care contributions from the pay of its
 BMWE-represented employees. This Board holds that the Carrier violated the parties'
 Agreement when it continued to deduct health care contributions from the pay of its
 BMWE-represented employees after the implementation of the UTU Agreement in
 January 2005. This Board further fords that the appropriate remedy for the Carrier's
 violation is an Order directing the Carrier to immediately cease making said deductions,
 and to reimburse the individual Claimants represented by the BM-\NE Organization in an
 amount equal to the total amount of such deductions for the period from January 1, 2005,
 through the late tha °"^l, deductions TL:,. 'oar' G__..7__.. ' t f
 t ."_~, uIdeductions cease. 1111) DU0.1u tutuler Ulre~J ulat so long as the current Agreement between the Carrier and the BMWE remains in effect, and the Carrier employees represented by the U T U or any other Organization are not required to contribute toward the cost of their participation in a National Health Plan, then, in accordance with the "me, too" clause in the parties' agreement, the Carrier's BMWErepresented employees also shall not be required to make such contributions. Award
      The claim is sustained. The Colorado and Wyoming Railway Company violated


                            19

OZ

              AANHVQ xuvw SHaMOd 'A KaAa,LS


        l~_~/' /v

                                          t


          ·HaRRIyD aHZ HOd :NIOIJLVZIiUVOH0 aHZ 2103


                  zaquTajnj jirinaN

                  ~ 2I~A ~ ' 2I ~3,L~


            ~U~ ~ e


          -asuao suojlonpap eons w a~j.-a no- SOOZ `I ~xEnuer Luau pouad


aqp zoj suoj~onpap jo lunoLue jelol aql of jpnba junoure uT; uj uojlezjueSzoWg acp

 Xct oamasazdai siueuuUT-) Tenpinmui am aslnnnrMT n, ra7_T_r _TTV ~,~*,.,*,*,._, n*nC s**1m***

    asnao ~ija~ejpauzuzT 01 pa;oazrPSTJOLLTUDOT41 *saaAojduza pajuasaadaz-y~gjo !ed


                                r__1-

aii; uiv.i~ aaefjam piie i~;~eari .ivf SuvI~nqT.i4uvJ adnu[uula paIDnpap 11 vzaUEazaTP Tuouz

 Ljoua puu SOOZ ,~nnuq SummSaq `uaum;uauiaaufy rn2y:)/aA1Wg `V00Z `LZ jIjdV aqj