| Subject: Letter to union lawyer regarding danger to the public and to the employees. Also regarding violations of seniority rights. |
Author:
Ed Kehoe
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:08:13 08/26/00 Sat
Author Host/IP: dialup-209.246.110.43.newyork2.level3.net/209.246.110.43
To Manlio DiPreta
Re: Request for legal assistance
August 22, 2000
Dear Manlio,
I want the practice of assigning different jobs to personnel who have already exercised their seniority rights in the pick to be stopped immediately. The practice of sending men and women into unfamiliar areas to engage in maintenance procedures outside of their pick needlessly places them in immediate danger because of their unfamiliarity with the equipment, the location and the movement of trains in the area. The attached “Safety Gram”, #93-10, issued on 10/17/93 gives ample evidence of the inherent dangers involved when people are initially in place on their new, permanent assignments, immediately after a job pick. The safety gram was written by Jerome Martin, a competent, knowledgeable manager who rose to his place of prominence based on his expertise in signal technology and a demonstrated quality of leadership. Not, as have many others, through political bias, but in spite of it. He wrote this at a time when the chief concern for the Signals managers was for the safety of their people. A concept, which has since been replaced by political cutthroats who are willing to kill people in order to show falsified documentation of increased productivity.
Management is always referring to their legal right to exercise “Normal management prerogatives”. The deprivation of the seniority rights of union members is neither normal, nor a prerogative. Further, they continuously refer to our obligation to assist them in running the transit system in a manner which is “safe, efficient and economical. There is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that they are neither efficient, safe, nor economical, perhaps it is they who are in violation of the contract. Their record of train accidents, deaths and injuries to the riding public and to our own employees gives ominous evidence in support of my contentions.
The type of work that we do is a dangerous; we accept that as being inherent in the job itself. Nevertheless, the practice of sending workers to work in unfamiliar areas is a direct assault on the safety of our personnel. Because of the extreme danger involved, not only to the signal personnel but to the riding public as well we demand that the practice be stopped immediately. The danger is of such a serious nature, that the normal process of delayed and denied grievance procedures are wholly inadequate as they relate to this particular problem. Therefore, I ask that the union file a temporary injunction against implementing this procedure, using as the reason for such, the possible danger to the riding public. There is precedent for this type of restraining order to be issued, the same type of order was issued against the union in order to prevent us from going on strike to protect the public. If we don’t know how to do it, we can use the Mayors guidelines against us as a template.
My opinion is that both the Transit Authority as well as the judge will think twice about overriding or otherwise refusing to entertain our request. Not because of the safety factors involved, but because of the political ramifications that are certain to occur as a result of an imminent accident as a result of their failure to act. The request for the restraining order will be a matter of public record. The costs involved in the settling of any lawsuits would not be nearly offset by the few meager dollars that they save by failing to fill the open jobs in these areas.
The second topic of our discussion will be based on a similar subject, but relates more to questions of seniority violations, out and out favoritism, and finally, to a simple matter of economics. The practice of assigning our signal personnel to work in job related situations that were clearly not indicated on the pick is a seniority violation. The jobs as indicated on the pick, for the most part, indicate very definite and specific areas of the work involved and to be expected. The blatant attempt by members of management to incorporate, notes or other forms of subterfuge into a job pick, with the specific intention of using this fraudulent practice to place their favorite pacesetters in advantageous positions is an outrage. The practice violates seniority, encourages the abuse of safety standards, and is one of the primary incentives for people to leave the signal department. An outstanding example of this abuse could be seen in the 215th street signal shop, whereas people who picked the heavy duty section were told after the pick to work in the relay section. The reason for the change, after the pick, was to give the chosen few an opportunity for payments of overtime. When I say the chosen few, I kid you not. The practice of moving their buddies around, even engaging in jobs that are totally out of their career field, presents an opportunity for economic advantages on the part of the authority, while rewarding those of us willing to put our brothers and sisters out of work with a few hours of overtime.
I make no bones about it, many of my coworkers will engage in practices that they instinctively know will deprive their coworkers of a fair shake simply to earn a few extra bucks. We all know who they are, they can generally be found in the company of their bosses, in their offices, driving their cars, sharing their lunches and in general curling up at their feet in the most obsequious manner. Those of us who would rather retain some vestiges of our dignity become the subjects of distinct economic disadvantages. Further, those of us who speak out against these practices inevitably become the targets of Transit Authority retaliation.
The practice of name calling that is now being practiced by a supervisor against a faction of our workforce referred to as the 207th Street R&R gang is a violation of their civil rights. I want to file a civil action against the practitioners of this devious behavior. In the mean time; I want your office to file a demand, by whatever means necessary, that will offer temporary protection against the victims pending a more permanent remedy to the problem.
The idea of picking a job from an enormous amount of otherwise available options, absent the ability to actually be able to visualize the available options is ridiculous. I demand that the members of the signal department be allowed to view the available jobs in order to exercise their seniority options. The futile attempt of trying to pick a job based on information given over the telephone is not acceptable; I want an in person pick. The very same thing that is available to our brothers and sisters in other divisions.
Finally, the reasons I come to you directly instead of asking our union representatives to take this on. It is, as you very well know, the good old David and Goliath syndrome. Our representatives, though not legally trained to be lawyers, are nevertheless quite efficient in resolving problems in many areas. However, in issues such as the ones I now lay before you, in which the outcomes have very serious economical and political ramifications, the legions of well paid, well educated, well trained professional legal hit men/women put forth by a well positioned, highly influential, economical governmental behemoth such as the New York Transit Authority, they do not stand a chance. Add to that the enormous costs of personal time and money and you have all the ingredients required for an out and out slaughter.
We need, we have a right to, and we demand competent legal representation. I need to know from you if that legal representation is available through your office. I do not wish to place you in a position where you may feel that there is a potential conflict of interest between what is best for the union, as opposed to what is best for the membership. Clearly for me there is no conflict, the union only exists to serve the members. When the union bosses feel that the survival of their political and economic comfort takes a precedent of their obligations to the membership then you Sir, are illegally employed if you side with them. This is in no way intended to cast aspersions on your ethics, which are never in question, or your capabilities as a qualified labor attorney. The letter is merely intended to find out, once and for all, where we should go for the legal assistance for which we are so desperately in need.
Respectfully,
Edward Kehoe
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 