Form 1225 NO. UTAH COPPER CO. ORE DELIVERY-MINE TO MILLS TIME RETURN AND DELAY REPORT OF ENGINE AND TRAIN EMPLOYEES DATE REMARKS (19) There does not exist nor has there existed any agreement or understanding, either written or implied, that the individuals engaged in Utah Copper ore haulage service are within the purview of the agreement the carrier has with its engineers and firemen. On the contrary, the officials of the carrier have consistently asserted their lack of authority or jurisdiction to negotiate or contract on behalf of the Utah Copper Company with Utah Copper Company employes. This policy has always been maintained and is evidenced by various correspondence reproduced below: The following letter was received from C. E. Turner, Chairman, dated October 22, 1938, in connection with application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to individuals engaged in Utah Copper Company ore haulage: We are calling your attention to the notice posted in the engineers change room, concerning the 44 hours per week for men in ore delivery service. We wish to protest such action of the company. We base our protest on Section 13B of the Fair Standards Act, or what is known as the Wage and Hour Law. We insist that the agreement concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions for firemen will be lived up to. Sincerely yours, (Signed) C. E. Turner, Under date of October 25, 1938, the Railway Company's General Manager replied to the above as follows: "C. E. Turner, Chairman, Magna, Utah. Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of October 22, in which you call our attention to the notice posted in the Engineer's Change Room concerning 44 hours per week for men in the Ore Delivery Service. This has reference to the applicability of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the Utah Copper operations. I assume that the Utah Copper Co. is not subject to the provisions of Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act and that therefore its employes are not excluded from the operations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by its Section 13 (b) to which you refer. However, you should communicate with the Utah Copper Company through its officials in charge of the operations in question. I am not an official of the Utah Copper Co. and have neither authority or jurisdiction over the subject to which you refer. Permit me to suggest to you that the agreements between the Bingham & Garfield Railway Co. and its employes do not include within their scope the employes of the Utah Copper Co., a fact that was made clear in all negotiations between the Railway Company and its employes culminating in such agreements. Yours truly, (Signed) F. O. Haymond Nothing further was heard on this subject until the following letter, dated October 2, 1939, was received: "Mr. F. O. Haymond B&G Railway Company Dear Sir: Concerning my communication of December 19, 1938, which I respectfully requested from you a reply concerning the management's application of the 'Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938' to certain of its crews who are engaged in work classed by the management as 'Ore Delivery Service' which was protested by the organizations October 22, 1938. I respectfully request a reply to my communication of December 19, 1938. Yours very truly, (Signed) C. E. Turner, The communication of December 19, 1938, referred to by Mr. Turner, had never been received by the Railway Company, and Mr. Turner was so advised, whereupon he furnished what he claimed was a copy, reading as follows: "Mr. F. O. Haymond General Manager B&G Railway Company Magna, Utah Dear Sir: Further concerning the Management's application of the 'Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938' to certain of its crews who are engaged in work classed by the Management as 'Ore Delivery Service' which was protested by the organizations October 22, 1938. It is the position of the Organization that all of the Bingham and Garfield Railway Enginemen are excluded from the provisions of the Act regardless of the character of work done by them or place of its performance. As result of the Company's application of the Fair Labor Standards Act, crews in 'Ore Delivery Service' are restricted to six days work per week in violation of Article 10, Enginemen's current Agreement. Claims have been made by the engineers and firemen for the days held off their regular assignment; payment of these claims have been declined by you. In view of the Company having arbitrarily held these enginemen in question off their regular assignment, one day each week, in violation of Article 10, Current Engineer's and Firemen's Agreement, I respectfully request that you allow all the enginemen who have been held off their regular assignment, compensation for each and every day so held at the rate per day as provided for in the Agreement. An early reply will be appreciated. Yours very truly, (Signed) C. E. Turner Under date of October 6, 1939, the Railway Company's General Manager replied to the above, as follows: C. E. Turner: Your letter of the 2nd inst., is received. I have discussed with you a number of times the matter covered by your letter of December 19, 1938, and upon each of those occasions, I reiterated the fact pertaining to the employment to which you refer, which I now confirm in writing as follows, such being, I presume, a character of 'reply' requested by you. Men employed in the Ore Delivery are not employes of the Bingham and Garfield Railway Co. As you well know, the Ore Delivery is an industrial or plant operation of the Utah Copper Company, and the men therein engaged are employes of Utah Copper Co. Those men are not now and never have been subject to any agreement between the Bingham and Garfield Railway Company and its employes. That was discussed and was clearly understood when the agreement to which you refer was entered into. As Utah Copper Company employes, those employes are subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and I suppose the Utah Copper Co. will comply with that Act. The number of hours each week those employes may be permitted to work and the compensation they may be paid are matters about which I have nothing to do; that is a matter that is of no concern whatever to the Bingham and Garfield Railway Company or to me as that Company's General Manager. You are directing your effort to the wrong place there is nothing I can do about it and it will be useless for you to further importune me. Very truly yours, (Signed) F. O. Haymond, Nothing further on this subject was brought up until the following letter, dated April 28, 1941, was received: Concerning my communication of December 19, 1938, and of October 2, 1939, I requested that you allow all enginemen who have been held off their regular assignment compensation for each and every day so held at the rate per day as provided for in the Agreement. This committee is requesting conference with you for the purpose of settling these claims referred to, the claims covering time Íost by Enginemen account action of the management in not observing our agreement with respect to ore haul service. If, however, you do not desire to meet this committee in settling these claims as requested, then we suggest that you join us in a statement of facts to be presented to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, if not we will go ex-parte. An early reply will be appreciated. Yours truly, (Signed) C. E. Turner General Chairman B of LF&E |