Talk about leveling the playing field. OSHA’s FRSA Whistleblowers have sent another powerful message to rail management: sorry guys, but the days of business as usual are officially over. Supervisors are no longer free to retaliate at will against employees who raise safety concerns.

It all started when a Union Pacific Railroad Company welder performing work on adjacent railroad tracks asked for a lookout and tools to make the job safer. His reward? Instead of a thank you for trying to be safe, his supervisor abolished his job, forcing him to increase his daily commute by 131 miles and taking him away from his family for extended periods of time.

The welder filed a whistleblower complaint under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, and OSHA’s investigation concluded the Railroad’s abolishment of the position was illegal retaliation. In so ruling, OSHA’s regional administrator stated a simple principle that will reverberate throughout the railroad industry:

"A supervisor does not have the right to abolish a job position because he becomes annoyed by a worker voicing safety concerns."

Wow. Amen and Hallelujah, brother.

But that’s not all. OSHA ordered the Railroad to reassign the welder to his former position, reimburse him for his travel expenses, and pay compensatory damages for his personal hardship. And to top it off, the Railroad was ordered to provide whistleblower rights information to all its employees. For the OSHA Press Release, click here.

So now it is getting very real for the railroads. The FRSA has taken away the right of managers to retaliate at will against employees who get under their skin by reporting injuries or raising safety concerns. From now on, any railroad arrogant enough to ignore the FRSA will be forced to pay dearly for it.

 

I feel safer already. The Department of Homeland Security, through its Transportation Security Administration (TSA), has finally gotten around to promulgating new regulations strengthening security on passenger and freight railroads. The new regulations were to go into effect December 26, 2008, but the railroads successfully petitioned for a delay until April 1, 2009. The regs can be found at 49 CFR 1580. For the final report and full text, click here.

Suffice to say, every passenger and freight railroad now must have a Rail Security Coordinator who is available 24/7 to coordinate intelligence and security with the Transportation Security Administration and law enforcement agencies.

And every railroad now is required to "immediately report potential threats and significant security concerns to the Department of Homeland Security Freedom Center at 703-563-3240 or 1-877-456-8722."

Potential threats or significant security concerns are defined to include:

–interference with train crews;

–bomb threats;

–suspicious items that disrupt railroad operations;

–suspicious activity around rail cars or rail facilities;

–discovery of a firearm or other deadly weapon on a train, station, terminal, facility, storage yard, or other location used in the opeation of the railroad;

–indications of tampering with rail cars;

–possible surveillance of a train, facility, storage yard, or other location used in the operation of the railroad;

–threatening correspondence received by the railroad.

The reality is, the TSA has to rely on the eyes and the ears of railroad employees and passengers. So the slogan "If you see something, say something" now has to be changed to "If you see something, call the Freedom Center at 703-563-3240 or 1-877-456-8722." Not as catchy, but hopefully more efficient.

Also, special chain of custody and control requirements apply to freight railroad operations in High Threat Urban Areas (HTUA). HTUAs are listed in an Appendix to the regulations, and include areas around Boston, Jersey City/Newark, New York City, and Philadelphia. The railroad must physically inspect cars carrying "rail security-sensitive materials," keep them in a "rail secure area," and document the transfer of custody in writing or electronically.

Sounds like Joe Szabo will be the next Head of the Federal Railroad Administration. If so, this is good news for rail labor and anyone concerned with promoting rail safety. Joe’s background is as a conductor for both freight and passenger railroads, and until recently he served as Illinois state legislative director for the UTU. Joe has known Obama since Obama was an Illinois state legislator, so Joe will have the President’s ear.

And speaking of Hope and Change, is it too much to hope for that Joe will take steps to increase the coordination between the FRA and OSHA’s Whistleblower Office when it comes to investigating railroad violations of the new Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 USC 20109? Congress assigned OSHA the responsibility to investigate FRSA retaliation complaints, but did not give OSHA the subpoena power to force recalcitrant rail managers to hand over the internal documents and data needed to prove patterns of systemic abuse. That’s where coordinated efforts by the FRA can come in.

Many of the FRSA violations for retaliating against employees who report injuries and interfering with their medical treatment also are violations of the Internal Control Plan the FRA requires railroads to live by, 49 CFR Part 225. The FRA requires all railroads to publish and enforce an Internal Control Plan (ICP). The Metro-North Railroad ICP is typical, and reads as follows:

"Metro-North Railroad is committed to the complete and accurate reporting of all accidents, incidents, injuries, and occupational illnesses arising from the operation of the railroad. Metro-North is also committed to full compliance with the FRA’s accident reporting regulations. Harassment or intimidation of any person that is calculated to discourage or prevent any person from receiving proper medical treatment or from reporting any accident, incident, injury, or occupational illness will not be permitted or tolerated. Disciplinary action will be taken against any employee, supervisor, manager, or officer of Metro-North Railroad who harasses or intimidates."

So a violation of the FRSA often will be a violation of a railroad’s ICP, thus giving the FRA the jurisdiction and obligation to investigate. If the FRA works together with OSHA’s Whistleblower Office to develop the information necessary to fully investigate such violations, the enforcement of the FRSA will be materially strengthened.

 

 Some people just don’t get it. CSX Transportation managers definitely fall into that group. In a lengthy Investigative Report released in March of 2008, the Federal Railroad Administration put CSX on notice that its management culture of harassment and intimidation intended to dissuade employees from reporting injuries had to stop. In response, CSXT made numerous representations to the FRA promising to change its behavior.

But guess what? The complaints of harassment and intimidation just kept flowing in to the FRA as if nothing had happened. By January of 2009, the FRA had had enough. On January 16th, the Acting Administrator of the FRA, Clifford C. Eby, issued a blistering three page letter to CSX Transportation President and Chief Executive Michael Ward. Eby pointed to the ongoing complaints despite the CSX’s list of promises, and concluded: "It is clear that CSXT has failed to adequately address its culture of harassment and intimidation. . . . CSXT has not yet fulfilled its commitments made to FRA regarding harassment and intimidation. . . . the evidence shows that CSXT’s response has been inadequate. In order to truly prevent any more instances of intimidation, CSXT must put forth a sustained good-faith effort to change its culture." For the FRA 01/16/09 letter, click here .

Clearly, the FRA’s patience has run out. If CSX doesn’t change its hostile management culture and change it quick, the FRA will step in and slap a compliance order on the CSX, putting the daily actions of CSX managers and supervisors under FRA oversight.

Meanwhile, whenever a CSX manager intimidates or retaliates against an injured employee, the new amendments to the Federal Railroad Safety Act allow that employee to file a FRSA retaliation complaint with OSHA’s Whistleblower Office. And if OSHA does not promptly resolve the complaint, the employee can jump into federal court and have a jury award punitive damages of up to $250,000 against CSX. If the number of FRSA complaints coming out of places like CSX’s West Springfield Yard in Massachusetts is any indication, federal juries are going to be very, very busy awarding punitive damages against railroads like CSX.

So while changing CSX’s hostile management culture may be a tough nut to crack, the FRA and FRSA are like the pincer arms of a nutcracker, and CSX’s nut is now caught firmly in that nutcracker’s grip. With the increasing pressure being exerted by the FRA and the FRSA, it is only a matter of time before CSX’s nut cracks wide open. 

 

The coalition of unions on Metro-North Railroad, the Metro-North Labor Council, recently met with the top administrators and whistleblower investigators from OSHA’s Regions 1 and Region 2. Every craft on the Railroad was represented by at least one rail labor official. The spokesman for OSHA was Region 2 Supervisory Investigator Michael Mabee. It was an illuminating meeting for both sides. The rail labor reps described their frustration with the Railroad’s hostile management culture, and the OSHA administrators were able to clarify their role in applying this novel whistleblower statute.

Because it is new, the FRSA raises many questions. But undoubtedly one of the great unanswered questions presented by the FRSA is the meaning of subsection (f), entitled "Election of Remedies." There are no Administrative Law Judge or federal court decisions interpreting what the language of subsection (f) means. However, a pattern is beginning to emerge nationwide. Taking advantage of the void in case law, and desperate to deflect the force of the FRSA, the railroads obviously have gotten together and agreed to press a baseless interpretation of subsection (f): namely, that an employee’s participation in the Railway Labor Act disciplinary process constitutes an "election of remedies" that eliminates the employee’s rights under the FRSA. My response is, nice try guys, but that’s not what the language of subsection (f) says either in isolation or when read in the full context of the FRSA statute.

We all know that when it comes to statutory construction, the plain meaning of the text controls. But we tend to forget another basic principle, namely that the statute is the text itself, not the title given to the section or to the subsections within the statute. And because the title is not part of the statute’s text, it cannot be used to undo the plain meaning of the text. In pressing their baseless interpretation of subsection (f), the railroads are conveniently ignoring these basic principles of statutory interpretation.

Yes, FRSA subsection (f) is entitled "Election Of Remedies." But that subsection does not actually use the term "remedy" in its text. Nor does the phrase "election of remedies" appear anywhere in the text. The actual text of subsection (f) reads in full:

"An employee may not seek protection under both this section and another provision of law for the same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier."

That is, an employee may not seek protection under both the FRSA and another statute for the same unlawful act of the railroad. The key phrases here are "may not seek protection" and "for the same allegedly unlawful act." Let’s take a look at the plain meaning of that statutory language viewed on its own and in the full context of the other FRSA subsections.

UNLAWFUL ACT

For a railroad to file a disciplinary charge against an employee is not it itself an "unlawful act" (it is legal for a railroad to file disciplinary charges under the RLA, and it happens hundreds of times a day). Filing a disciplinary charge is only an "unlawful act" if it is done in retaliation for an employee engaging in activities specifically protected by the FRSA. That is, the act of disciplining is "unlawful" only if it is done with an intent to retaliate for the employee’s protected activity. Absent such an intent to retaliate, there is no "unlawful act" for the FRSA to protect against.

TO SEEK PROTECTION

FRSA subsection (f) only states that an employee may not seek "protection" under the FRSA and another provision of law "for the same unlawful act." It does not say an employee may not seek remedies under both this section and another provision of law. Congress certainly could have stated that an employee can not seek remedies under both the FRSA and another law, but chose not to do so. Instead Congress only referred to protection under the FRSA. The only unlawful act that the FRSA can or does protect against is whistleblower retaliation. To seek protection from unlawful whistleblower retaliation means to invoke the protection of a whistleblower statute. Because an employee can seek protection under only one whistleblower protection statute, the employee must elect which whistleblower retaliation protection statute he is invoking.

And in fact that is how OSHA applies the FRSA.  After OSHA receives a FRSA complaint, it requires the employee to fill out and return an "Election of Remedies" form. The form requires the employee to elect the protection of one specific whistleblower protection statute. The explanatory cover letter that accompanies the form quotes FRSA subsection (f) and then points out that because the employee’s complaint could be investigated by OSHA "under several different" whistleblower laws, the employee must chose the whistleblower law under which he wants OSHA to proceed. The Railway Labor Act is not one of the laws listed for election by the employee. Once the employee elects a specific whistleblower law, OSHA does not concern itself with whether a Railway Labor Act matter is pending because the RLA is not a whistleblower protection statute. OSHA proceeds with its whistleblower retaliation investigation regardless of whether any RLA process is unfolding at the same time.

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION STATUTE

The Railway Labor Act has no whistleblower protection provision, 45 USC 151 et seq. It is not a whistleblower protection statute. The purpose of a Railway Labor Act disciplinary proceeding is to interpret and apply the collective bargaining agreement, not to protect whistleblowers. A RLA proceeding can only rule on the merits of the underlying collective bargaining agreement disciplinary charge. It can not and does not address whether the railroad acted unlawfully by retaliating for whistleblower activity protected by the FRSA. The final result of a RLA proceeding is not based on any finding of whistleblower retaliation.

SUBSECTION (f) MUST BE HARMONIZED WITH SUBSECTIONS (g) and (h)

The United States Supreme Court has stressed time and again that statutory construction is a "holistic endeavor." The language of a statute only has meaning within the context of the broader statute, and courts "must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy." A statute’s text must be examined in the context of the plain meaning of its related statutory provisions.

Here, there are three FRSA subsections that must be read together and harmonized: subsection (f) entitled Election of Remedies, subsection (g) entitled No Preemption, and subsection (h) entitled Rights Retained by Employee.

Subsection (g) states that "Nothing in this section preempts or diminishes any other safeguards against discrimination, demotion, discharge, suspension, threats, harassment, reprimand, retaliation, or any other manner of discrimination provided by Federal or State law." The phrase "nothing in this section" means the entire FRSA section and all its subsections. "Nothing in this section" means nothing in subsection (f) can be used to preempt or diminish such safeguards. The Railway Labor Act is a federal law that contains such safeguards. Thus nothing in the FRSA can preempt or diminish an employee’s safeguards under the Railway Labor Act. The text of (f) must be read in conjunction with (g). The two subsections must be harmonized so as to avoid a fatal conflict that cancels out one or both subsections. Read together, those two subsections lead to the unavoidable conclusion that the FRSA operates in addition to the RLA, not in place of it. The protections of the FRSA are in addition to the safeguards of the RLA. The two federal statutes are like two locomotives that each operate on their own parallel separate track, co-existing rather than competing to occupy the same single track.

This interpretation is reinforced by the language of subsection (h): "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any Federal of State law or under any collective bargaining agreement." Again, the phrase "nothing is this section" is all-inclusive and unlimited in scope. Its plain meaning must be applied to every subsection within the FRSA. And subsection (h) plainly states that nothing in the FRSA shall be deemed to diminish the remedies of any employee under the Railway Labor Act or any collective bargaining agreement. This is in fact the only place where the word "remedies" appears in the actual text of the FRSA. And it is used in the context of a sweeping declaration that nothing in the FRSA shall be interpreted to diminish the remedies of any employee under the Railway Labor Act.

The language of subsection (f) must be read in light of the transcendent "nothing in this section" language of subsections (g) and (h). The meaning of (g) and (h) is plain: subsection (f) cannot be interpreted to diminish any employee’s rights and remedies under the Railway Labor Act. The FRSA’s protection against whistleblower retaliation exists in addition to the collective bargaining remedies available to an employee under the RLA. That interpretation harmonizes the plain meaning of all three subsections. The railroads’ baseless interpretation of subsection (f) improperly ignores the force and effect of subsections (g) and (h) and relegates them to dead letters.

NO DOUBLE RECOVERY OF REMEDIES

This interpretation of the FRSA’s election of remedies subsection–namely that at most it only requires an election between whistleblower protection statutes–is consistent with OSHA’s handling of FRSA complaints and with the harmonization of subsections (g) and (h). It also does not lead to any double recoveries. That is because the remedies listed by the FRSA are tailored to the practical reality of an employee’s condition. The FRSA generally states that a prevailing employee "shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole." 49 U.S.C. 20109(e)(1). If reinstatement is not needed or already has been accomplished, then it is not required under the FRSA. And if there is no back pay to be awarded or if the employee already has been made whole, then there is no double recovery for that remedy. The Railway Labor Act does not provide any remedy for compensatory damages or for punitive damages, so no double recovery is possible there. Because the FRSA exists in addition to–instead of in place of–the RLA, and because the flexible relief under the FRSA is tailored to each employee’s individual situation, double recovery is easily avoided.

 

 

Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Metro-North Railroad worker Kevin McGrath, whose life came to an end on the tracks just west of Rye Station while he was on duty January 9th. Just as every human life is unique, each fatal railroad accident like this is uniquely tragic. 

As Kenny’s family, friends, and co-workers celebrate his life and mourn his loss, they cannot help but ask themselves, "Why? What went wrong? How could this possibly happen to an experienced 25 year Railroad veteran?" It is only human to try to make sense out of such a tragedy by asking such questions. But if experience is any guide, the full truth as to what really happened will not emerge until long after the period of initial shock and grieving. 

From my point of view as a railroad accident FELA lawyer, at times like this I am always struck by the disconnect between the superficial news reports in the media and the complex depths of the true story. One article from the Connecticut Post is typical.  Click here for article. It gives the bare known facts, and then refers to two earlier Metro North railroad accident worker fatalities, both of which were FELA cases handled by my firm. The Robert Ard, Jr. case is instructive. After Bob was killed by a Metro North train in Stamford Yard, Metro North Railroad management issued a Report placing all the blame on him, a conclusion other law firms endorsed when declining to help his wife and two daughters. Of course Bob could not speak for himself, but by aggressively using the tools of federal court discovery we were able to uncover the truth: the underlying cause of Bob’s death was in fact Metro North’s failure to follow its own failsafe procedures for safe switching operations. After a two week federal court trial, the jury rejected Metro North’s "blame the victim" defense and returned a gross verdict of $4.3 million for Bob’s wife and daughters.  For information on the Ard verdict, click here and here.  

As the Ard case illustrates, the full truth will not emerge even when the Railroad conducts its own investigation and issues its Report. Indeed, it is likely Metro North’s Report actually will avoid or obscure the truth as to what really happened and why. It takes time and hard work, but the truth as to what really happened can and must be discovered, if only to provide closure for Kevin McGrath’s loved ones and to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

 

You know the old saying, "One man’s meat is another man’s poison"? Well, one of the highlights for me at the last National Mediation Board’s "Conference on Labor/Management Relations at the Passenger Railroads" in Washington DC was the comment of William Murphy, Deputy General Manager Labor Relations on New Jersey Transit. Speaking on behalf of management at the Seminar on Coalition Bargaining, Murphy got some laughs by suggesting that the definition of a coalition is "a form of conspiracy." But it was said only half in jest, because the truth is, rail management’s worst nightmare is to confront a coalition of unions determined to focus on common issues such as wages, supplemental pensions, and medical benefits.

And it’s no wonder why railroad managers hate union coalitions: they put a stop to their "divide and conquer" strategy. As George Francisco, President of National Conference of Firemen & Oilers SEIU, pointed out at the Seminar, traditionally rail carriers whipsaw the unions, first by dividing them (often by using the egos of union representatives as a wedge) in order to gain a favorable "pattern" contract with one union, and then by bludgeoning one union after another with their so-called "pattern" contract. The only defense against this strategy is for rail unions to recognize their common self-interests and to work together as a team to achieve their common bargaining goals.

Now God knows coalitions are not perfect (or easy to maintain), but they certainly beat the alternative. And the proof is in the pudding. Perhaps the longest running example of an effective Coalition is on Metro-North Railroad. Started in 1984 amidst the ashes of Conrail’s Metropolitan District, for the past 25 years the unions on Metro-North Railroad have maintained a working Coalition both for collective bargaining and sharing information on common issues. As a result, today Metro-North’s contract is one of the best on any railroad in the country. For a Railway Labor Executive Association White Paper on the Metro-North Labor Coalition, click here.

So Bill Murphy has good reason to fear the newly formed New Jersey Transit Railroad Coalition. And for the first time the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad is facing a Coalition of its unions as well. So to those union reps on New Jersey Transit (such as Dean Devita, Arthur Davidson, and Pat Reilly) and on MBCR and elsewhere with the wisdom to see the advantages of forming such coalitions, I say, "Right on, keep the faith, and never forget: don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good." 

 

On January 16, 2009, several changes to the FMLA regulations will go into effect.

The biggest change from a worker point of view concerns how and when employee give notice of taking FMLA leave. Before, employees had up to two days after an absence to notify employers they actually were taking FMLA leave. Now–absent an emergency or unusual circumstances–an employee needing FMLA leave must follow the employer’s usual and customary call-in procedures for reporting an absence. This applies to intermittent FMLA leaves as well as leaves for a block of time.

What this means is that the FMLA will not protect a worker from discipline for an absence unless the worker notifies the employer of the FMLA absence by following the usual call-in procedure for announcing a non-FMLA absence.

There’s more.  Employers can no longer count "light duty" assignments as FMLA leave.  And employees who take intermittent leave may be required to complete "fitness for duty" evaluations before returning to work.  Click here for the Department of Labor’s summary of all the new FMLA regulations. http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/finalrule.htm

You wouldn’t know it by how railroads treat it, but the FMLA is a remedial statute that must be broadly construed to effectuate its humanitarian purpose. And the purpose of the FMLA is "to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons," and to help working men and women "balance the demands of the work place with the needs of families." 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b)(1) and (2). The FMLA is about family values, about allowing workers to be responsible spouses and parents. So when a worker is denied his FMLA rights, it hurts his entire family.

Even though railroads may try to treat the FMLA as if it were a hyper-technical law with rigid rules, courts and juries do not. So the bottom line is, do not be cowed by the 3D campaign of railroads against the FMLA. 3D is shorthand for "delay, deny, discourage."  Even though the FMLA is supposed to be applied in a liberal manner,  railroads delay by bouncing back adequate doctor certificates. Then they deny FMLA applications for bogus reasons and hope the worker doesn’t challenge them.  The ultimate goal of the 3D campaign is to discourage workers from even trying to apply for FMLA leave in the first place. Unless workers stand up to the railroads’ illegal 3D behavior, the remedial purpose of the FMLA will be defeated. 

The good news is, Congress allows workers whose FMLA rights have been delayed or denied to immediately file suit in federal court so judges and juries can hold employers accountable. The remedies under the FMLA include the voiding of any discrimination or discipline, double damages for lost wages and benefits, and attorney fees and costs. And a worker can file suit not only on behalf of himself but also on behalf of all his fellow workers in order to stop the railroad from continuing to violate the FMLA.  So don’t be afraid to stand up and fight for your FMLA rights–by stopping the railroad from violating the FMLA you are helping your family and the families of all your co-workers.  For more information on the FMLA, go to the Department of Labor’s website www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

 The FRSA (Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 USC 20109) just keeps getting better and better. The FRSA is now amended to provide that:

A railroad may not deny, delay, or interfere with the medical treatment of an employee who is injured during the course of employment. In particular, a railroad may not discipline or threaten to discipline an employee for following the orders or treatment plan of a treating physician. (The full text of this amendment is available after the jump).

This is a fundamental shift in the balance of power between rail management and rail labor. Think about it. Up to now, whenever an employee reports a FELA on-the-job injury, railroads like Metro North, LIRR, New Jersey Transit, Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad, and Amtrak order the injured employee to travel long distances to the railroad’s medical facility, even if such travel violates the treatment plan of the employee’s treating doctors. Once there, the employee is given a perfunctory lookover by a non-physician and sent back home. This is a form of harassment designed to discourage employees from reporting injuries in the first place. And if the employee follows his doctor’s orders and stays home, the railroad charges the employee with insubordination and disciplines him, up to and including firing.

Here’s a recent example. True story, I’m not making this up. An injured employee in Connecticut was ordered to report immediately to the Metro North medical facility in Grand Central Terminal. His treating doctor faxed down a note confirming that his patient required three days of bed rest. Metro North refused to accept the note because, and I quote, "It doesn’t say that you can’t travel on a train" (apparently Metro North now allows beds in its commuter trains). Metro North told the employee he is not excused from the appointment and "You will be disciplined if up don’t show up."

Well, railroads can no longer play that game. The FRSA now prohibits a railroad from disciplining an employee for following the orders or treatment plan of his treating doctor. So when an employee has a note from his doctor stating he can not travel, the railroad can not force him to travel to its medical facility. Or if the treating doctor says no light duty, the railroad can not force the employee to work light duty. Or if the treating doctor says his patient needs more treatment before returning to work, the railroad can not force him back to work. 

Another form of abuse is when railroads routinely "deny, delay, and interfere with an injured employee’s medical treatment" by arbitrarily declaring his on-the-job injury "non-occupational." This means the railroad will not pay for the medical treatment prescribed by the employee’s treating doctor. This forces the employee to try to have his regular medical insurance pay for his treatment, but such insurance is not supposed to cover on-the-job injury medical expenses. Many medical insurance plans limit the doctors you can see, and all require various out-of-pocket co-payments. As a result, this inevitably denies, delays, or interferes with the employee’s medical treatment. And the railroad improperly evades payment of the medical expenses by placing it on the backs of the insurance company and the employee.

Metro North Railroad is notorious for this abuse, and in fact the Metro North Labor Council has been investigating this arguably fraudulent conduct by the Railroad for some time. Now, railroads like Metro North will be sued under the FRSA whenever they declare an on-the-job FELA injury to be "non-occupational," with the prospect of punitive damages up to $250,000 for each occurrence.

There is more to this powerful amendment to the FRSA (keep tuned, details to follow). But one thing is clear: in the eternal struggle between rail labor and management, the balance of power has now shifted over to labor’s side when it comes to controlling the course of an employee’s medical treatment. Start spreading the word so labor can enforce its new won rights to the fullest extent allowed by law. 

Continue Reading New FRSA Amendment Protecting Medical Treatment Alters the Balance of Power