Tag: Rail Safety Improvement Act

Home>News>Rail Safety Improvement Act

Here we go again – or should we say, again and again and again and again.

This time it is Canadian National’s Illinois Central Railroad and short line Chicago, Ft. Wayne & Eastern Railroad that have been hit with more than $650,000 in sanctions by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration for retaliating against three employees who reported workplace injuries and/or safety concerns.

Sadly, there is basis in fact for the refrain that no industry spends as much to hire and train new employees as do railroads and then works so hard to intimidate, harass and fire them.

The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) said the more than $650,000 in sanctions is to go toward back wages and damages for two Illinois Central employees at the railroad’s Markham, Ill., yard, and a Chicago, Ft. Wayne and Eastern employee — all of whom were the targets of management retaliation in three separate incidents.

“It is critically important that railroad employees in the Midwest and across the nation know that OSHA intends to defend the rights of workers who report injuries and safety concerns,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor Dr. David Michaels. “We will use the full force of the law to make sure that workers who are retaliated against for reporting health and safety concerns are made whole.”

Michaels has said that before, in the wake of its investigations and sanctions against other railroads – and OSHA continues to deliver on its promise.

The Federal Rail Safety Act of 1970 extended whistleblower protection to employees retaliated against for reporting an injury or illness requiring medical attention. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 added additional requirements ensuring injured workers receive prompt medical attention. An employer is outright 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, or for reporting workplace safety concerns.

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.

OSHA, which does not identify whistleblowers, said the first employee, a conductor, was injured in August 2008 when he was knocked unconscious and sustained injuries to his shoulder, back and head while switching railcars in Illinois Central’s Markham, Ill., yard. A knuckle that connects the cars allegedly broke, said OSHA, causing the cars to suddenly jolt and the employee to fall. The railroad held an investigative hearing and consequently terminated the conductor, alleging he had violated safety rules.

OSHA, however, found that the worker was terminated in reprisal for reporting a work-related injury.

The second employee, a carman, reported an arm/shoulder injury in February 2008. While walking along a platform to inspect railcars in the poorly lit yard, said OSHA, the carman slipped on ice and tried to catch himself, which jolted his left arm and shoulder. The railroad held an investigative hearing and consequently terminated the carman for allegedly violating the company’s injury reporting procedures.

OSHA, however, concluded that the carman had properly reported the injury.

In the third incident, OSHA said Chicago Fort Wayne & Eastern Railroad – a RailAmerica property — wrongly terminated a conductor in retaliation for his raising concerns about workplace safety while serving as a union officer, and for reporting a trainmaster had instructed him to operate a train in violation of certain Federal Railroad Administration rules in June 2009 near Fort Wayne, Ind.

UTU designated legal counsel have pledged to investigate and assist UTU members in bringing complaints under these laws.

A rail employee may file a whistle-blower 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:

https://www.smart-union.org/td/designated-legal-counsel/

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:

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

Tags Canadian National, Chicago, Federal Rail Safety Act, Ft. Wayne & Eastern, Illinois Central, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Rail Safety Improvement Act, RailAmerica, whistleblower

Following almost 1,000 complaints from rail workers that they were improperly disciplined for reporting injuries or unsafe working conditions, the Federal Railroad Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have forged an alliance to bring more pressure on railroads to stop the pattern of harassment and intimidation.

“The safety of railroad employees depends on workers’ ability to report injuries, incidents and hazards without fear of retaliation,” said OSHA.

Between 2007 and 2012, OSHA received more than 900 whistleblower complaints under the Federal Rail Safety Act, and almost 63 percent involved an allegation that a worker was retaliated against for reporting an on-the-job injury.

Under the coordination agreement, the FRA will refer railroad employees who complain of alleged retaliation to OSHA. OSHA will provide the FRA with copies of the complaints it receives under the Federal Rail Safety Act’s whistleblower provision, as well as any findings and preliminary orders that OSHA issues. The agencies will jointly develop training to assist FRA enforcement staff in recognizing complaints of retaliation, and to assist OSHA enforcement staff in recognizing potential violations of railroad safety regulations revealed during whistleblower investigations.

“This memorandum is a watershed moment for both railroads and labor alike,” said FRA Administrator Joe Szabo. “Securing a process that protects employees who report safety violations is critical to maintaining safety standards in the workplace.”

In recent months OSHA has ordered railroads to pay millions of dollars in sanctions for violating federal whistleblower protections. “Firing workers for reporting an injury is not only illegal, it also endangers all workers,” OSHA said. In imposing sanctions against Norfolk Southern in 2011, OSHA said the railroad’s culture of employee harassment and intimidation permitted the railroad to “maintain the appearance of an exemplary safety record.”

UTU designated legal counsel have pledged to investigate and assist UTU members in bringing complaints under these laws.

A rail employee may file a whistle-blower 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:

https://www.smart-union.org/td/designated-legal-counsel/

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:

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

Tags Federal Rail Safety Act, Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, harassment, intimidation, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, OSHA, Rail Safety Improvement Act, whistleblower

Sadly, there is a part of “no” that railroads just can’t understand. So, once again, the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has hit a railroad in the wallet for violating an employee’s rights as protected under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, which was supplemented by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

The latest wallet-lightening fine was imposed by OSHA against Union Pacific for retaliating against a Pocatello, Idaho, based locomotive engineer who was forced to work and prevented from seeking medical treatment for a migraine headache, blurred vision, dizziness, vomiting and a bloody nose.

OSHA found that the engineer’s supervisor – who also was ordered to pay a portion of the fine – used “threats and intimidation to dissuade the engineer from seeking or gaining access to medical care during his shift.”

Yes, the UP supervisor chose to order an ill locomotive engineer, whose situational awareness was clearly compromised, to operate the train.

Said OSHA in imposing more than $25,000 in punitive and compensatory damages, plus attorney fees: “It is critically important that Union Pacific Railroad employees know that OSHA intends to defend the rights of workers to report safety concerns. We will bring the full force of the law to make sure workers who are retaliated against for reporting health and safety concerns are made whole.”

Incredibly, this was the sixth time since 2009 that OSHA has found Union Pacific in violation of an employee’s rights enumerated by the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 and the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. BNSF, Metro North Railroad, Norfolk Southern and Wisconsin Central also have been penalized by OSHA for similar violations.

In late 2011, Union Pacific was ordered immediately to reinstate an employee and pay him back wages, compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees totaling more than $300,000 after the employee was suspended, without pay, and then terminated after notifying UP of an on-the-job injury.

The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 extended whistleblower protection to employees who are retaliated against for reporting an injury or illness requiring medical attention. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 added additional requirements ensuring injured workers receive prompt medical attention, and established prohibitions on carrier intimidation and harassment of injured workers aimed at ending a culture that placed the winning of carrier safety awards and year-end managerial bonuses as a higher priority than treatment and prevention of injuries.

The purpose of these laws — passed by Congress after the UTU documented a railroad culture of harassment and intimidation against injured and ill workers — is to protect rail workers from retaliation and threats of retaliation when they report injuries or illness, 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 safety related equipment.

An employer is outright 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.

Earlier this year, OSHA elevated in agency priority its whistleblower protection efforts, placing enforcement directly under OSHA’s assistant secretary of labor. OSHA said the elevation was an effort “to strengthen employees’ voices in the workplace.”

UTU designated legal counsel have pledged to investigate and assist UTU members in bringing complaints under these laws.

A rail employee may file a whistle-blower 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 https://www.smart-union.org/td/designated-legal-counsel/ 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:

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

Tags Federal Rail Safety Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Rail Safety Improvement Act, Union Pacific

WASHINGTON — The senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, introduced legislation Feb. 8 to reduce the rail route miles over which positive train control (PTC) must be implemented before January 2016.

Senate co-sponsors include John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 mandated PTC be installed, and the Federal Railroad Administration followed with a regulation ordering PTC to be installed on some 73,000 miles of track — those carrying passengers and freight cars containing toxic inhalation hazard chemicals — by Dec. 31, 2015.

PTC is a collision-avoidance overlay system for locomotives, using global positioning satellites and computer software.

In a Jan. 8 press release, Hutchison said her legislation is not intended to roll back the congressional mandate, but rather reduce the number of track miles on which PTC must be installed.

“Traffic patterns for shipping toxic chemicals are changing,” Hutchison said. “This means that at least 10,000 route miles used to move chemicals in 2008 are no longer expected to transport these products in 2015.”

The proposed legislation follows a visit by railroad CEOs in late January to officials of the Obama administration, in which they reportedly said they are in the process of concentrating toxic inhalation hazards on fewer miles of track, and that the PTC mandate should affect traffic patterns expected in 2015 rather than traffic patterns in 2008.

Hutchison called the FRA’s PTC mandate “an example of regulatory excess that is costing America’s businesses billions of dollars with no obvious benefits. We must rein in the regulatory bureaucracy in order to unleash innovation and investment and spur job growth,” Hutchison said. “This commonsense bill would reduce compliance costs without impacting the safety or security of our country’s rail lines.

“By requiring the use of the 2015 traffic patterns, this bill will do much to address the mistakes made by the FRA in implementing this mandate,” Hutchison said.

Tags FRA, positive train control, PTC, Rail Safety Improvement Act

If a congressionally ordered railroad risk reduction program is to be effective, the Federal Railroad Administration must include railroad employees and their labor unions in the process of evaluating and managing the program.

That is the message seven rail labor organizations sent to the FRA Feb. 8 in response to an earlier FRA notice of proposed rulemaking implementing a risk reduction program.

The program was ordered by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA). Its purpose is to reduce the consequences and rates of railroad accidents, incidents, injuries and fatalities.

The UTU was joined by the American Train Dispatchers Association, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, Brotherhood of Railway Carmen and Transport Workers Union in commenting to the FRA.

Congress specifically concluded that having railroads “unilaterally decide issues of safety would not be in the public interest,” the UTU and the other labor organizations told the FRA. Yet, the notice of proposed rulemaking “undermines” that congressional intent.

To ensure an effective risk reduction program, the FRA must solicit rail labor input and participation, said the labor organizations. Specific to train and engine workers, such participation must include:

Technology implementation.
Fatigue management.
Risks posed by joint operations, including passenger and commuter trains.
Security risks.
National Transportation Safety Board recommendations.
Disclosure of all carrier bonus, incentive and compensation systems that reward management employees for meeting or exceeding safety related goals, targets, benchmarks or milestones.
Disclosure of policies and data related to waiver and discipline practices that in any way discourage accurate reporting of accidents, incidents, injuries or close calls.

The labor organizations also asked the FRA to develop historical data on the following:

Number of disciplinary charges filed for rule violations.
Number of whistle-blower cases filed by employees.
Number of employee dismissals.
Number of FRA reportable injuries.
Number of meet and confer sessions related to safety.
Safety records of regional and shortline railroads.
Retaliation, intimidation and overall culture, attitude and policy toward safety reporting by employees.
Safety incentive programs and policies that create peer pressure within work groups not to report injuries in order to preserve incentive prizes.
A carrier’s past response to risk, hazards, defects, near misses and safety complaints reported by employees.
The effectiveness of operating rules and practices in risk reduction.
The effectiveness of safety and training programs.

Additionally, the labor organizations asked the FRA to “pay particular attention to railroads that regularly intimidate employees to cut corners [and] hold formal hearings and discipline employees whenever accidents or injuries are reported.”

The process for evaluating and managing a risk reduction program must also include direct employee input, said the labor organizations. “There is no substitute for interviewing employees actually doing the work,” and such interviews should mask the identity of employees to ensure “they may speak freely.”

Of special importance to train and engine workers is the implementation of a fatigue management plan. “A human being cannot possibly be rested to work safely unless that human being knows when they must report for service,” said the labor organizations. “Often, safety critical employees are forced to report for service even when fatigued, or [they] face disciplinary hearings and loss of employment.

“We encourage the FRA to take immediate action to require 10 hours of advance notification for all operating employees not otherwise on assignments with defined start times,” said the labor organizations.

To read the comments of the seven labor organizations, click here.

To read the FRA’s earlier notice of proposed rulemaking, click on the following link:

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-08/pdf/2010-30836.pdf

Tags fatigue, FRA, intimidation, Rail Safety Improvement Act, retaliation, RSIA, safety, whistleblower

By James Stem, UTU National Legislative Director

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) was not all that rail labor wanted in a safety bill, but it was a good start, and contains much of what we have long sought. Work still needs to be done, including an end to limbo time, advance notice of start times, and an end to arbitrary discipline tied to unreasonable availability policies.

We said after passage of the bill that we would work with our friends in Congress to refine and improve the bill.

The process has begun.

In his final days in Congress, Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) introduced H.R. 6519, the Railroad Hours of Service Act.

Rail labor and Mr. Oberstar, one of the best friends rail labor has ever had in Congress, knew there was not time in the lame-duck session of Congress for the bill — which includes improvements to hours-of-service provisions of the RSIA — to pass.

Thus, H.R. 6519 was intended as a place-setter — a bill whose provisions already are winning support among UTU lawmaker friends and which will be re-introduced by other friends of the UTU in the new Congress in 2011.

The UTU, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen will be working closely on a new bill with our congressional friends of labor come January and the start of the new Congress.

Provisions of the bill include:

An affirmative statement that railroad workers subject to hours-of-service “shall be provided predictable and defined work and rest periods.”
A required 10 hours of undisturbed rest be taken immediately prior to going on duty rather than immediately after going off duty. This provision is intended to end the common practice of so-called “paper deadheads” and “dropped turns” with a 10-hour call.
All yardmaster — as well as co-mingled service as yardmasters and dispatchers — are to be subject to hours-of-service regulations.
Deadheads in excess of a time period shall count will count as job starts.
All interim release periods are to require prior notification before going off duty.
Limbo time will be restricted to two hours per each tour of duty.

Although some provisions we also want were not included in H.R. 6519, we will be working to have them included in the new bill this next session of Congress.

They include:

A provision to cover regular yard assignments with defined start times under provisions that now apply to passenger and commuter rail assignments.
A provision that no amount of time at an away-from-home terminal will reset the calendar day clock.
A provision requiring that hot, nutritious food be available 24 hours per day at the sleeping quarters.

The UTU also will support additional provisions specific to railroad signalmen as sought by their organization.

The new Congress will include 100 new members, and many were elected with the support of rail labor organizations. We have already begun discussions with those new members and are continuing discussions with our other friends in Congress toward early introduction of the Oberstar place-setter, with the additional provisions included.

Tags H.R. 6519, James Stem, Rail Safety Act, Rail Safety Improvement Act, RSIA, safety

First it was Union Pacific wanting to have its trains inspected in Mexico.

Now BNSF is making the same plea to the FRA — and as the UTU and other rail unions did in the case of UP — the FRA is being advised to, “just say no.”

Putting safety first cannot co-exist with farming out crucial safety inspections to the lowest bidder, the UTU and the other labor organizations told the FRA in the case of both UP (in October) and BNSF (in December).

To begin with, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 established standards to be met when railroads seek safety waivers, such as wanting trains inspected south of the border.

The UTU, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and the American Train Dispatchers Association contend that neither UP nor BNSF have demonstrated that the inspections in Mexico will meet minimum FRA standards.

In fact, neither UP nor BNSF has shown that the FRA will have the uninhibited authority to examine the Mexican facilities where the safety inspections would be made.

Furthermore, said the UTU and other labor organizations, moving the inspections south of the border would be in direct conflict with congressional policy — and eminent common sense — to preserve employment in the U.S. during this lengthy and stalled recession.

The labor organizations told the FRA that “it is common” for cars from Mexico to enter the U.S. “with handbrakes applied, retaining valves set, angle cocks closed and bad order cars located within the train.

“Not to be overlooked is the fact that these trains also frequently are transporting hazardous materials cars,” the UTU and other labor organizations told the FRA.

“Historically, the FRA has denied requests for waivers of air brake and mechanical safety inspections on trains entering the U.S. if the request involves movement of the trains past a point where the inspections can be performed,” said the labor organizations.

Tags BNSF, FRA, Rail Safety Improvement Act, safety, safety inspections

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 made the first significant amendments to hours-of-service laws in nearly 40 years.

In response, the FRA issued an interim statement of agency policy and interpretation, which poses significant problems for train- and engine-service employees with regard to employee safety and earnings.

The UTU and the BLET now have jointly asked the FRA to reconsider portions of their interim statement of agency policy and interpretation. The new rules would impact more than 85,000 train- and engine-service employees who are members of the UTU and BLET.

Significantly, the UTU and BLET are asking the FRA to revisit its interpretation of how to determine whether an employee has received the statutorily required amount of off-duty time as prescribed by the Rail Service Improvement Act (RSIA).

The RSIA amended the statutory off-duty period by eliminating the option of eight consecutive off-duty hours, and required that the minimum statutory off-duty period be 10 consecutive hours in all cases (except in intercity passenger and commuter service).

The UTU and BLET assert that, “on its face, this change did nothing to force FRA to change its longstanding interpretation of how sufficient off-duty time is determined.”

Under the existing FRA method, a railroad is required to look back 24 hours at the employee’s on-duty time and determine if the employee had 10 hours of undisturbed rest in that window. If the answer is ‘yes,’ then the employee can work a full 12 hours. That approach is called the “fresh start look back” analysis.

But the FRA, in its interim statement of agency policy and interpretation, proposes to scrap the “fresh start look back” analysis and substitute what is called a “continuous look back” analysis.

A “continuous look back” analysis would require the railroads to look back at every moment during a duty tour to determine if the employee has had 10 consecutive hours of undisturbed rest in the 24 hours prior to that particular moment.

This new “continuous look back” approach would prohibit an employee from working the full 12 hours that are permitted by the law if they were to have more than a two-hour call.

The FRA’s proposed “continuous look back” approach not only adversely impacts an employee’s earnings, but interferes with a railroad’s need to maximize employee productivity.

In fact, the “continuous look back” approach also could result in more employees being forced to remain at away-terminal locations rather than returning home, which adversely impacts family life and imposes greater costs on a railroad.

For example, if an employee has a three-hour call — and this is generally of necessity in large metropolitan areas where commute times are long — the employee could only work 11 hours, because when the first minute of the 12th hour arrives, the railroad could not look back 24 hours and find 10 consecutive hours undisturbed hours off duty. (11 work + 3 hour call + 10 hours rest = 24 hours) Thus, the longer the call time, the less work the employee can legally perform.

For assignments with an interim period of rest, the most an employee could ever work is 10 hours. For an unassigned (extra board) employee who is working on call, the call time further reduces the amount of work time proportionally. If they get the typical two-hour call, the interim period of release is rendered moot.

10-hour call is best

The better solution would be to require a 10-hour call, which would permit 12-hour on-duty shifts, the UTU and BLET told the FRA. “It is obvious that an employee who is aware that they will be required to report for work in 10 hours is best able to schedule their rest so that they arrive at work in the most alert condition possible.

“The best medical evidence available establishes what the labor organizations have known for years: that employees will be most alert just after they wake up,” the UTU and BLET told the FRA. “We contend that an employee who sleeps or naps as close to their reporting time as possible, within reason, is the best rested employee and therefore the safest.”

In the joint statement signed by UTU International President Mike Futhey and BLET Acting National President Paul Sorrow, the FRA is asked to “reaffirm the long-standing ‘look back fresh start’ interpretation, which has served both safety and the industry well, and decline to adopt the proposed ‘continuous look back.'”

Click here to read the joint UTU/BLET submission to the FRA.

Tags BLET, HOS, hours of service, hours of service laws, Rail Safety Improvement Act, RSIA

By UTU International President Mike Futhey

We are a union on the move, growing stronger financially and adding new members through aggressive organizing.

In addition to organizing 300 pilots and flight attendants at Great Lakes Airlines recently, we have authorization cards from a majority of the 110 pilots at Lynx Aviation. We are talking with pilots and flight attendants at other airlines, as well as bus operators on unorganized properties and employees of short line railroads.

Indeed, we are a union on the move — in organizing, defending existing agreements, and having our voice heard in Washington and state capitols.

While the Rail Safety Improvement Act is not everything we sought, we were able to achieve conductor certification, a deadline for implementation of positive train control, and a provision for general chairpersons to negotiate a better balance between new hours-of-service limitations and earnings.

I have appointed a UTU team to work with the FRA, other labor organizations and carriers in drafting conductor certification standards.

I have created a UTU Rail Transportation Safety Team to deal directly with the FRA in the face of an unacceptable spike in on-duty employee fatalities and career-ending injuries. Jointly with the BLET, we filed a petition with the FRA seeking an emergency order prohibiting the use of one-person crews in conventional and remote-control operations.

We are working with others in transportation labor to gain legislation eliminating flight-crew fatigue and to bring flight attendants under protections of OSHA.

Through the AFL-CIO, we are pushing for changes in commercial driver’s license regulations that subject bus operators to loss of their jobs if they receive citations while operating personal automobiles. We also are working to gain legislation requiring improved crash-resistance buses, uniform driver-training standards, and required training in dealing with abusive and threatening passengers.

The UTU is growing financially stronger owing to new cost containment controls and conservative investment policies, with our general fund balance up 90 percent since January 2008. UTUIA earnings have been growing each quarter, and the UTUIA has a $23 million surplus. And our DIPP claims no longer exceed premiums.

Officers at every level are benefitting from iLink features, and the UTU University is providing members with online educational opportunities that will continue to be expanded.

This administration remains true to its pledge of two-way communication. We invite your comments and suggestions and we will continue to provide leadership messages posted at www.utu.org.

Tags FRA, Great Lakes Airlines, Lynx Aviation, organizing, Rail Safety Improvement Act, RSIA

In a joint submission aimed at improving safety and the security of member paychecks, the UTU and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen have asked the Federal Railroad Administration to clarify and simplify its interim policies relating to, and interpretations of, the Rail Safety Improvement Act’s changes to hours-of-service limitations that went into effect July 16.

The sought-after clarifications and simplifications fall into three categories:

The Rail Safety Improvement Act’s (RSIA) prohibition of communication with employees during statutory off-duty periods;
The RSIA’s provisions pertaining to mandatory off-duty time following the initiation of an on-duty period for a specified number of consecutive days; and,
The maximum number of hours that may be worked in a calendar month.

The joint UTU/BLET comments observe that the hours-of-service provisions in the safety act “produced the most far-reaching effects on hours-of-service of safety-critical railroad workers since enactment of the original Hours-of-Service Act in 1908.” In fact, the FRA, itself, observes that the hours-of-service amendments “are extraordinarily complex and comprehensive.”

Because of the complexity, said the UTU and the BLET, “the statute itself fails to adequately address a number of important issues that will almost certainly have a substantial effect on our members. Moreover, FRA has been forced to provide interpretations that must address goals that sometimes are in conflict. It is our sincere hope that these [joint UTU/BLET] comments will provide a basis for improvement of FRA’s policies and interpretations in a way that is faithful to the intent of Congress.”

The UTU and the BLET also asked the FRA “to further clarify their stated interpretations in plain language to the maximum extent possible, so there is no room for debate concerning the application of those interpretations.”

The UTU and the BLET noted also that they were not commenting on each policy and interpretation “because we do not want to unnecessarily burden the record. However, FRA should not conclude that we concur with each of the policies and interpretations with which we strongly disagree, but we are withholding comment concerning them because FRA’s position has been dictated by the statute itself, and FRA cannot depart from statutory requirements; therefore, comments concerning these subjects would be futile.

“The comments are intended to provide greater clarity to the sometimes confusing provisions of the law, and to assist UTU and BLET general committees in their efforts to negotiate a better balance between maintaining earnings and the new requirements,” said UTU International President Mike Futhey and BLET National President Ed Rodzwicz in a joint statement.

To read the joint UTU and BLET submission to the FRA, click here.

Tags BLE, BLET, FRA, HOS, Rail Safety Improvement Act, RSIA