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

When rail labor works together, good things happen. Case in point: a critical meeting last September 15th with the Department of Labor regarding the true meaning of "election of remedies" under the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) is now bearing fruit.

In early September, the DOL appeared headed toward accepting rail management's argument that an employee's participation in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) process constitutes an irrevocable "election of remedies" barring the employee from the protections of the FRSA. However, the DOL asked to hear rail labor's point of view, and invited a few rail labor attorneys to attend a September 15th summit to discuss the issue.

As the attorney who first weighed in on this issue and was set to try the first FRSA cases in November, the DOL asked me to attend. What happened next illustrates the power of working together. BMWED Director of Safety Rick Inclima and St. Paul rail labor attorney Charlie Collins reached out to the invitees, urging us to coordinate our efforts for maximum effect and offering the IBT's Headquarters as a location for us to meet beforehand. And coordinate we did. In addition to Rick and Charlie, Jim Farina and Steve Garmisa showed up from Hoey & Farina in Chicago, as did San Diego rail labor atorney Harry Zanville and UTU Associate General Counsel Kevin Brodar from Cleveland.

We put our heads together. Our challenge was to convince the DOL that the FRSA and the RLA exist on separate parallel tracks with neither one excluding the other. To do that, we had to explain the very real practical differences between the RLA process and the whistleblower protections of the FRSA. It was agreed I would kick off the discussion, and that afternoon we met with high level personnel from the DOL's Solicitor General Office and Directorate of Enforcement Programs.

We had an intense back and forth for over two hours. I opened it up by pointing out that the purpose of the FRSA is to change rail management's culture of retaliation, and the way to do that is to allow the FRSA to operate independently of the RLA. By the end of the meeting I believe we were able to open up DOL's eyes to the fact that RLA proceedings simply do not address or remedy whistleblower retaliation, and that the interpretation sought by rail management would eviscerate the FRSA and return us to the unacceptable status quo before Congress enacted the FRSA.

Now it appears our efforts are bearing fruit. The DOL's Assistant Secretary for OSHA just asked to file an amicus appeal brief with the Administrative Review Board on the issue of "election of remedies," and the BMWED put out a Press Release noting the tide has turned. The sense we are getting is that OSHA now is directing its Whistleblower investigators to conduct their FRSA investigations regardless of any RLA proceedings. And so, thanks to the cooperative efforts of rail labor, the FRSA and RLA will forever operate on separate parallel tracks, where they belong.

BMWED President Freddie Simpson said it best in his Press Release: "Railroads will no longer be able to retaliate against railroad employees who report injuries and safety violations with impunity. This is a substantial victory for all of Rail Labor and every rail worker nationwide, and I am proud that BMWED led the way to this important victory." And to that I can only add, "Amend brother!"

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

Here's a quick look back at some of this year's notable developments in the rail safety world:

March: FRA bans railroad supervisors from medical examining rooms: click here

June: OSHA's Whistleblower Office issues $300,000 in punitive damages against Metro North Railroad for violations of the Federal Rail Safety Act FRSA, setting important precedent: click here

October: Judge confirms FRSA punitive damages apply to publicly owned commuter railroads:click here

November: Judge confirms FRSA prohibits railroads from interfering with the medical treatment plan of employees' treating doctors: click here

November: the first trial in the nation of a FRSA complaint is held in New Haven, Connecticut, against Metro North Railroad (stay tuned for the Judge's decision in early 2010)

And looking forward to 2010, here's hoping:

---for more rulings rejecting rail management's bogus argument that the participation of employees in Railway Labor Act disciplinary proceedings somehow constitutes an "election of remedies" that bars them from the whistleblower protections of the FRSA;

---for judicial rulings establishing that under the FRSA, an employee's treating doctor "trumps" over whatever a railroad manager or medical department may think or want to do;

---to increase the beneficial effect of the FRSA's sister law, the NTSSA (which protects subway system employees who raise safety concerns) by encouraging its application on major subway systems such as New York City Transit and the Washington DC Metro.

Meanwhile, here's wishing everyone a safe and productive new year!

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

Joe Coleman from Seattle asks whether union reps can be present when a worker gives a statement to a railroad claims agent. The real question is, why would a railroad worker NOT have his union rep present?

No way can there be ever be a level playing field between a claim agent and an injured worker. Think about it. A claim agent is a manager whose only job is to save the railroad money. He is a professional trained to ask leading questions that steer the worker into incriminating answers that will insulate the railroad from liability. The injured worker, on the other hand, finds himself suddenly thrust into a bewildering process with no idea how to protect his legal interests.

Always remember, you don't have to give a statement to a claim agent. If a claim agent asks you to come in and give a statement, ask the claim agent if your union rep can be there with you. If the answer is no, that is all the proof of unfairness you need, and just walk away.

Before giving any statement, it is always best to at least consult with an experienced FELA attorney who can advise you how to protect your long term interests. But at the very least, talk to an experienced union rep who can be there to keep the claim agent honest.

So don't be fooled by the "friendly" claim agent who just "wants to help" and, by the way, just needs to take a "short statement on the record" before he will process your medical bills and so on. He will smile and joke and take your statement, and then months or years later when you go to settle your claim, he will pull out your statement and say, "Gee, what do you want from us? You yourself stated it was just an accident that could not have been avoided. You're lucky we even paid your medical bills."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Railroad Medical Departments, beware, you can no longer interfere with an injured employee's medical treatment. Subsection (c) of the Federal Rail Safety Act prohibits a railroad from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical treatment of an injured employee. The FRSA also prohibits a railroad from disciplining an employee for following the orders or treatment plan of his treating doctor. The railroads argue this FRSA protection only applies to an injured employee's emergency medical treatment. But in the first decision interpreting the meaning and scope of FRSA subsection (c), Administrative Law Judge Colleen A. Geraghty has made it clear the FRSA's

provisions protect employees from interference with medical care or the treatment plan of a treating physician during the course of treatment and recovery from a work injury. . . . Accordingly, an employer's changing the classification of an injury occurring at the workplace to a non-occupational injury may rise to the level of "interference with medical treatment" depending on the circumstances. 

For a link to the full opinion, click Santiago v. Metro North Railroad. Metro North had reported Santiago's on the job injury to the FRA as occupational and paid for Santiago's medical bills accordingly. But then in the middle of his treatment, the Metro North Medical Department unilaterally reclassified Santiago's injury as non-occupational (without amending its FRA report), thus forcing him to choose between forgoing his treating doctor's medical treatment plan or paying for it from his own funds. The result? He now has personally paid or owes over $16,000 in medical bills. His case is going to trial next week. Stay tuned for any punitive damage award.

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

Here's a true story that should give any railroad supervisor pause. The fact is, you never know where an act of retaliation will lead. After you commit an act of retaliation, you simply can not control how it reverberates in people's lives. And while all retaliation hurts, it can kill as well. It's like a felony-murder: when in the course of a robbery someone gets unforseeably killed, the robber is still guilty of murder even though he never intended anyone to die.

Case in point. A notorious Metro North supervisor with a long history of abusing his authority decided to humiliate one of his electricians in front of his gang. Why? Because the worker was taking FMLA leave to be with his wife for the birth of their baby and to help her during the weeks thereafter.

The electrician complained to Metro North's Workforce Diversity Department, who commenced an investigation. In response, the supervisor proceeded to retaliate against the worker by improperly abolishing his job and then refusing to allow him to transfer into a different district, trapping him. The public humiliation and the cumulative abuse was the last straw that broke the worker's emotional equilibrium. He felt his choice was to return to work and "go postal" when he saw the supervisor again, or to give up his railroad career. He chose to avoid violence and resign (the law calls that a "constructive discharge" because the railroad made his work life so intolerable it forced his resignation).

The problem is, he then lost medical coverage for his wife and baby, he lost his regular income and pension, and he struggled to replace the wages and self-respect he earned in his railroad job. Metro North's Workforce Diversity Office completed its investigation of the supervisor, and concluded the supervisor was guilty and deserving of severe discipline. But what happened? His managers refused to accept Metro North's own ruling, and watered down the discipline so it was meaningless.

Several weeks later, the worker put a bullet in his head. A life destroyed, a productive career lost, a family devastated, a baby girl who will never know the love of her father. And all because the Railroad's managers reflexively protect their abusive supervisors.

Of course, when sued for wrongful death and FMLA violations Metro North tried to wriggle out from its liability, but the federal judge has refused to let the Railroad off the hook. Metro North now will have to face a jury, who will decide under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) whether the Railroad's conduct played any part at all in causing the worker's death. Let us all pray that, for the sake of his widow and baby girl, justice will prevail.

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

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