Tag: designated legal counsel

Home>News>designated legal counsel

A Wisconsin Central conductor has won a whistle-blower complaint against the carrier – collecting more than $125,000 in compensatory and punitive damages – for unlawful harassment and intimidation as the result of reporting an injury.

This was the third successful whistle-blower complaint filed against a railroad in recent months for violation of a worker’s rights under the Federal Rail Safety Act of 2007.

In the most recent case, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ordered Wisconsin Central to cease and desist in its practice of automatically issuing notices of investigation for employees who report work injuries.

OSHA also ordered the carrier to pay the conductor lost wages, plus interest; $100,000 in punitive damages for its reckless disregard for the law; and $25,000 in compensatory damages for mental pain and emotional distress due to the humiliation and loss of income from the wrongful suspension. OSHA also ordered Wisconsin Central to provide all employees with a fact sheet advising them of their rights for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses.

According to the conductor’s attorney, the conductor reported an on-the-job injury, as required by railroad rules. The railroad subsequently issued a notice ordering the conductor to attend a formal investigation to ascertain his responsibility for sustaining a personal injury and to determine if the conductor violated any railroad rules.

Although it was determined that the railroad had abandoned previous efforts to treat an ice covered service road that the conductor was required to use in the performance of duties – resulting in the injury – Wisconsin Central found the conductor guilty of violating several rules and issued a 10-day suspension. The railroad alleged that by sustaining an injury, the conductor had violated the railroad’s rules.

Earlier this year, OSHA required Union Pacific to rehire a machinist it had fired following the reporting of a work-related injury, finding UP had improperly retaliated against him.

And in December 2010, OSHA ordered a conductor employed by BNSF to be reinstated after finding BNSF guilty of improper retaliation after the conductor filed an injury report.

The Federal Rail Safety Act of 2007 protects rail workers from retaliation and threats of retaliation when they report injuries, report that a carrier violated safety laws or regulations, or if the employee refuses to work under certain unsafe conditions or refuses to authorize the use of any safety related equipment.

Retaliation, including threats of retaliation, is defined as firing or laying off, blacklisting, demoting, denying overtime or promotion, disciplining, denying benefits, failing to rehire, intimidation, reassignment affecting promotion prospects, or reducing pay or hours.

An employer also is prohibited from disciplining an employee for requesting medical or first-aid treatment, or for following a physician’s orders, a physician’s treatment plan, or medical advice.

This protection is known as “whistle-blower protection,” and the federal law is enforced by OSHA, as it was against Wisconsin Central, UP and BNSF.

Relief may include reinstatement with the same seniority and benefits, back pay with interest, compensatory damages (including witness and legal fees), and punitive damages as high as $250,000.

A rail employee may file the complaint directly with OSHA, or may contact a UTU designated legal counsel, general chairperson or state legislative director for assistance.

A listing of UTU designated legal counsel is available at http://www.utu.org/, or may be obtained from local or general committee officers or state legislative directors.

To view a more detailed OSHA fact sheet, click on the following link:

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA-factsheet-whistleblower-railroad.pdf

 

WASHINGTON — In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court June 23 declined to tighten the standard of proof injured rail workers must demonstrate to win an award under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA).

The ruling is a significant victory for injured rail workers.

The FELA — a railroader’s most cherished workplace safety assurance — was passed by Congress more than a century ago to make railroads liable if an employee injury or death results “in whole or in part” from the negligence of any of its officers, agents or employees, or from any defect or insufficiency in equipment or roadbed.

At the time of the FELA’s passage in 1908, more than 4,000 railroaders were killed annually, and some 63,000 more suffered serious injuries each year.

The Supreme Court previously held that the FELA was “designed to put on the railroad industry some of the costs of the legs, arms, eyes, and lives which it consumed in its operation.”

The June 23 Supreme Court decision turned on a crossover vote by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Bryer to rule against CSX and in favor of an injured CSX locomotive engineer.

The engineer had won a monetary award from a federal district court after being injured on the job in 2004 while operating a locomotive that the engineer contended was not suited for switching operations.

CSX twice unsuccessfully appealed the trial court’s decision – the first before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the second appeal before the Supreme Court. CSX contended in both unsuccessful appeals that injured rail workers should meet a more demanding standard of proof as is required in all non-FELA personal injury cases, not, as the trial court instructed the jury, that CSX was responsible for negligence if its negligence “played a part – no matter how small – in bringing about the injury.”

CSX sought a ruling that the employer’s action must be the “primary cause” of the injury. In fact, the “in whole or in part” language comes from the FELA itself, and that legislative language clearly impressed the Supreme Court’s majority in this case.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg said: “Juries in such cases are properly instructed that a defendant railroad ‘caused or contributed to’ a railroad worker’s injury ‘if [the railroad’s] negligence played a part – no matter how small – in bringing about the injury.’ That, indeed, is the test Congress prescribed for proximate causation in FELA cases.”

Earlier Supreme Court cases upheld the right of unions to advise injured workers to obtain expert legal advice, and the right of unions to designate legal counsel possessing specialized knowledge in railroad operations and the FELA.

A listing of UTU Designated Legal Counsel is provided at www.utu.org by moving the cursor to “About UTU” in the red horizontal bar at the top of the home page and then clicking on “Designated Legal Counsel.” A listing of Designated Legal Counsel also may be obtained from local union officers or your general chairpersons.

If you are injured on the job, the FELA and your UTU Designated Legal Counsel are the best friends you and your family have. These successful trial lawyers are specialists in handling FELA claims, and are fully experienced in dealing with railroad claim agents and railroad lawyers.

And remember: Contributory negligence is not a bar to recovering under the FELA; and the FELA prohibits railroads from retaliating against employees who provide Designated Legal Counsel with factual information on injuries to fellow employees, or who testify in support of injured workers.

Each FELA lawsuit sends to the carriers a message about improving workplace safety that they cannot ignore

To read the June 23 Supreme Court decision, CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Robert McBride, click on the following link:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-235.pdf

While sleep scientists have established that going to work fatigued is like going to work drunk, there remains a disconnect among those who manage transportation firms. And people are needlessly dying and being seriously injured as a result.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood June 1 criticized his own Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for not sooner putting a North Carolina bus operator — allegedly with a history of safety problems, including forcing drivers to work without sufficient rest — out of business sooner.

When the FMCSA finally got around to taking that shutdown action against the bus company May 31, four more lives were lost and 54 more passengers were injured.

The cause of that rollover bus accident near Richmond, Va., May 27 was driver fatigue, according to Virginia State Police, who jailed the bus operator for reckless driving. Seven times since October 2009, the bus company — Sky Express of Charlotte, N.C. — had been cited by the FMCSA for violating federal hours-of-service regulations requiring adequate rest for drivers, according to USA Today.

“I’m extremely disappointed that this carrier was allowed to continue operating unsafely when it should have been placed out of service,” LaHood told USA Today.

Sky Express received an “unsatisfactory” safety rating in April from the FMCSA, according to USA Today, but the FMCSA extended its investigation to, according to an FMCSA spokesperson, “make sure we had an airtight case to shut the company down.”

LaHood told USA Today, “There is no excuse for delay when a bus operator should be put out of service for safety’s sake. On my watch, there will never be another extension granted to a carrier we believe is unsafe.”

The FMCSA said Sky Express had numerous violations for keeping fatigued drivers behind the wheel and failing to ensure its drivers were properly licensed, had proper medical certificates, and could read road signs in English.

The National Transportation Safety Board blamed driver fatigue for a 2008 bus crash in Utah that killed nine, and a 2004 crash in Arkansas that killed 14. A fatal bus crash near New York City March 12, which killed 15, is under investigation. The company operating the bus was cited five times in fewer than two years for allowing fatigued drivers behind the wheel.

UTU members should note that federal law protects aviation, bus and rail workers from retaliation and threats of retaliation when they report that a carrier violated federal hours-of-service regulations.

Whistle-blower complaints may be filed directly with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or you may contact a UTU designated legal counsel, your general chairperson or your state legislative director for assistance.

To view a more detailed OSHA fact sheet on whistle-blower protection, click on the following link:

www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA-factsheet-whistleblower-railroad.pdf

FELA Update
By Mark Allen
Coordinator of UTU Designated Legal Counsel

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) was enacted by Congress in 1908 to give railroad employees the right, under federal law, to recover damages from their employers for injuries occurring at work.

However, generally, there must be proof of negligence on the part of the railroad that caused or contributed to the employee’s injury. Simply put, this means that the railroad must exercise reasonable care for the safety of its employees. The railroad must provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work. Its failure to do so is negligence.

The duty to provide a safe place to work includes the furnishing of safe tools and equipment, the selection of proper methods to do the work, the furnishing of sufficient help, and the adoption and enforcement of proper procedures. The railroad may also be negligent if it fails to adopt and enforce safety rules and practices, or by allowing unsafe practices to exist. The fact that unsafe practices and customs are standard in the industry is no defense.

An exception to the requirement for proof of negligence under FELA exists when an injury occurs because the railroad has violated either the Safety Appliance Act or the Locomotive Inspection Act.

The Safety Appliance Act relates to railroad cars and their safety devices and requires devices such as couplers, power brakes, grab irons, etc., to be free from defects. The Locomotive Inspection Act requires that the railroad keep its locomotives and tenders in proper and safe condition.

If the violation of either one of these laws causes injury to an employee, proof of negligence is not required and the railroad is strictly held at fault.

When you have a question about whether an action of the railroad was negligent that caused you injury or whether proof of negligence is required, contact a UTU Designated Legal Counsel. Go to www.utu.org and click on “Designated Legal Counsel” on the left side of the page; or ask your local union officers for the list.