Interesting video....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3H4_SZpadc
CMStPnPInteresting video.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3H4_SZpadc
In as much as we are only getting one side of the story it is hard to discern the realities of the situation.
The critical element that I haeard was the crew he was a part of left cars in the foul of a track that they were going to be operating on in later moves. While he is focusing his story on his engine consist having less than expected braking power when it became necessary to stop their movement from striking cars that THEY were the ones that left the cars in foul of their present movement.
He presents the case that a number of the cars being handled contained various forms of HAZMAT. His statements and discriptions allude to all the movements being handled without having air coupled through and operative through the cuts they were handling thus creating a high reliance on the effectiveness of the the locomotive consist's independent braking ability. In making the moves upto the point of the 'incident move' he should have known how effective or ineffective the independent brake was and have judged his braking points based upon his real learned history of this locomotive consist on this tour of duty.
Without knowing what the original charges of the Investigation were, it is difficult to know if the discipline assessed is warranted.
It is not unheard of for a employee to be dismissed for one rule violation trying to make his dismissal seem to be about some other factor involved in the incident.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I gather this incident occurred a couple years ago. What is the current status of the lawsuit?
BaltACDIn as much as we are only getting one side of the story it is hard to discern the realities of the situation.
Yeah most of those details eluded me...
So I don't know enough about railroad operations to really know much here either. Only few items I picked up on was he did contradict himself on the hazmat. First made it seem like he was hauling a dangerous cargo then later when directly asked it was empties and lumber. Second part I understood his throwing the locomotive in reverse. Third, he stated BNSF took everything from him......rather dramatic for only losing your job via termination. Last, scratching my head also on why locomotive brakes make a huge difference with low speed switching moves in what I concluded was a yard or yard limits, seems to me in most cases with a level yard you could coast to a stop but ......never been in the seat before so didn't fully understand that part.
So the other thing I gathered is this happened in the Portland, OR area somewhere.
CMStPnP BaltACD In as much as we are only getting one side of the story it is hard to discern the realities of the situation. Yeah most of those details eluded me... So I don't know enough about railroad operations to really know much here either. Only few items I picked up on was he did contradict himself on the hazmat. First made it seem like he was hauling a dangerous cargo then later when directly asked it was empties and lumber. Second part I understood his throwing the locomotive in reverse. Third, he stated BNSF took everything from him......rather dramatic for only losing your job via termination. Last, scratching my head also on why locomotive brakes make a huge difference with low speed switching moves in what I concluded was a yard or yard limits, seems to me in most cases with a level yard you could coast to a stop but ......never been in the seat before so didn't fully understand that part. So the other thing I gathered is this happened in the Portland, OR area somewhere.
BaltACD In as much as we are only getting one side of the story it is hard to discern the realities of the situation.
Level and railroad geography can rarely be mentioned in the same staement. There are very few truly level areas on any railroad property. The grades deviation from level may not be great - however when the grade is 'assisted' by hundreds if not thousands of tons of equipment acting against the independent brakes of the locomotive consist - the effects of the grades, no matter how small, cannot be dismissed.
As I recall, he said he totally lost independent braking due the failure of the brake rigging and/or brake beam alignment. So, even though it was slow speed in a yard, he was unable to stop. As described, that would be a major issue, and true emergency as he expressed.
What I find a bit strange is that he would give such a detaled public interview ahead of a trial.
I wonder where his union is on all this.
Questions arise:
He had been operating this locomotive for awhile, that night. Why didn't he notice a braking problem earlier?
How is it he found himself about to collide with cars he himself had placed?
And, of course, why were the train brakes inactive?
One could speculate that the "final event" was the first time that shift that he had tried using the independent brake.
It promises to be an interesting trial. Where's Court TV when we need it.
Ed
I finally made it through the interview.
I get the impression that the cars had been placed that they were hanging out on the lead at the other end of the yard track. That's not fouling the other track in the usual sense. Fouling is placing cars that don't quite clear, but may look like they do. In effect setting up a trap. He said they were going to hit towards the middle of a car, not a glancing blow to the end of a car. Sounds like they are out on the lead where it can plainly be seen that there are cars sitting. That doesn't seem to be an issue.
In some parts it seems like he's going at some point to try for a whistleblower's suit. He talks of meeting the machinist for a unrelated locomotive problem on another engine, from whom he learned about the way they were addressing braking problems It sounds like he was still working after the incident, which makes me think there is something more than that incident that led to his termination. If you're up for an investigation they take you out of service pending it. Especially if it's something that's likely to lead to termination.
I would expect that his union has appealed his termination and his case is waiting for arbitration. It could be that he feels an arbitrator will rule against him or he doesn't want to wait for the process to work itself out. The wait for a case to be heard can take years. Or the case is older than I think and he's already lost in arbitration.
There are a lot of details that aren't given. Somewhat understandable since the interview is for the general public where a lot of those details wouldn't be understood. On the face of it, he may have been wrongfully terminated, but that's the impression the interview is supposed to give.
The devil is in the (missing) details.
Jeff
jeffhergert If you're up for an investigation they take you out of service pending it. Especially if it's something that's likely to lead to termination.
Does that mean without pay? Wouldn't that be punishment?
Electroliner 1935 jeffhergert If you're up for an investigation they take you out of service pending it. Especially if it's something that's likely to lead to termination. Does that mean without pay? Wouldn't that be punishment?
Whether a employee is taken Out of Service, pending the company's Investigation depends upon each company's discipline policy and the nature of the infraction. Employees are not paid during the time they are held out of service.
Depending upon the procedures set up in the particular Union Contract concerning discipline, in most cases the Investigation is expected to be held within 7 days from the date of the charging document - the date, location and time of the Investigation will be stated in the charging document. A employee reporting for the Investigation is expected to fully Rested under the Hours of Serivce Law. Depending upon contract specifications a verdict is to be rendered within a specified time limit that varies from contract to contract.
After the verdict and discipline assessed letter, depending upon the severity of the discipline and the employee's desire, the Union will then begin the appeals process. That process will progress its way from the level that issued the discipline up through the companies appeal channels and heirarchy and if necessary outside the company to the National Labor Relations Board for potential arbitration. To get to the NLRB arbitration takes a year or more.
Some contracts specify the ' maximum level of discipline' that can be assess to a employee governed by the contract, most normally 30 days suspension. If the company feels 30 days suspension is not sufficient punishment its only recourse is to terminate the employee.
The Union in following the appeal path will generally also be asking that the dismissed employee be reinstated with full pay, benefits and seniority. Depending upon the basis of the appeal and points of logic with witch the appeal is rejected the employee and the Union may stop the appeal process and ask for simple reinstatement without backpay but with seniority intact.
Many dismissed employees end up being reinstated - I have no idea of the percentage.
It's been my impression that there is such a thing as layoff insurance...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68It's been my impression that there is such a thing as layoff insurance...
There is 'Job Insurance', I believe there are two competing firms. Your premimums are basically defined by how much you desire to be paid if you are put in the position of not getting paid - for whatever the disciplinary reason. Premimums can be withheld by payroll deduction.
You can not sign up for the insurance after you have been charged.
Dismissed employees are eligible for Railroad Retirement Unemployment payments after they file for them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.