Train Law Blog : Railroad Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Cahill Goetsch & Perry Law Firm : Railway Worker Injuries & Accidents

The railroads obviously have gotten together and agreed to push the bogus argument that any involvement by an employee in the Railway Labor Act CBA grievance-discipline process automatically constitutes an "election of remedies" under Federal Rail Safety Act subsection (f) that precludes any FRSA complaint. It is a bogus argument because it completely ignores the effect of subsection (g) entitled No Preemption and subsection (h) entitled Rights Retained by Employee, which must be read together and harmonized with subsection (f).

As railroad lawyers representing employees, it is critical that we give any OSHA investigators and Administrative Law Judges presented with that bogus "election of remedies" argument the means to reject it out of hand. Back in January I laid out my detailed argument for the holistic analysis of FRSA subsections (f), (g), and (h). "The Real Meaning of Election of Remedies Under the FRSA" And last month, in a well-reasoned and persuasive decision, Administrative Law Judge Daniel L. Leland confirmed that subsection (f) cannot be read in isolation but must be read together and reconciled with (g) and (h). And when that is done, the conclusion that the FRSA is not precluded by the RLA grievance-arbitration process is inescapable. Click here for the full Mercier v. Union Pacific Railroad opinion.

The Mercier decision was just certified to the Administrative Review Board for an interlocutory appeal, and has been assigned docket number ARB #09121. It currently is in the hands of General Counsel Janet Dunlap, who presumably will be issuing an Order regarding a briefing schedule. An ALJ decision that completely ignores the effect of subsections (g) and (h), Koger v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, ARB # 09101, is currently in the briefing stage. Given what is at stake (unlike ALJ decisions, ARB decisions are binding on OSHA nationwide) amicus briefs in support of the ALJ's analysis in Mercier are definitely in order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rail union rep Joe Coleman from Seattle has a question about the FELA liability of railroads who contract out work. His General Foreman recently hired subcontractors to band freight car loads that had shifted due to broken banding, and when challenged tried to justify it by arguing that since the subcontractors are self-insured, the railroad will save on FELA liability.

It ain't necessarily so. Federal Employers Liability Act liability cannot be contractually waived, 45 U.S.C. 55, and the Supreme Court holds that "non-railroad" employees are nevertheless covered by the FELA if they are (1) a borrowed servant of the railroad, (2) a servant acting for two masters simultaneously, or (3) a subservant of a company that was in turn a servant of the railroad. Kelly v Southern Pacific Co 419 US 318, 324 (1974). When determining whether a person is a borrowed servant or dual servant under the FELA, courts look at several factors: (1) who exercised significant supervisory control over the worker at the time of the injury; (2) who selected the worker; and (3) who paid his or her wages. The overriding consideration is whether the railroad had control of (or the right to control) the worker in the performance of his duties, and where evidence of control of the employee's activities is in dispute, the case must go to a jury. Vanskike v ACF Indus. Inc., 665 F.2d 188, 198 (8th Cir, 1981).

So don't let managers bluff you with such lame justifications for violating your contracting out rules----railroad laws such as the FELA do not disappear merely because a railroad says so. Employees of railroad subcontractors can still sue the railroad under the FELA. And by the way, railroad contractors also are covered by the anti-retaliation provisions of the Federal Rail Safety Act. Under the FRSA, a railroad subcontractor cannot retaliate against its own employees who report safety violations or personal injuries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link