Whistleblower Protection Blog : Whistleblower Lawyer & Attorney : National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund : Whistleblower Protection, Fraud Claims : Washington DC

Local 689 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) represents employees of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA or Metro). Last month, Lindsey Williams (Advocacy Director of the National Whistleblowers Center) and I spoke to Local 689's Executive Board.  You can follow this link to my report of that meeting.

Now, ATU Local 689 has distributed an article about our meeting to all its members through its newsletter. This is the October/November 2010 issue, pages 10-11. You can download those two pages here (PDF file of 1.3 MB). Or, you can get the full newsletter (12 pages, 10 MB), from ATU Local 689's webpage.

The ATU Local 689 newsletter was particularly interested in my assertion that the National Transit System Security Act (NTSSA) of 2007, 6 USC §1142, protects public transit employees when they speak to the media about safety concerns. I should add here that the protection for media disclosures is not absolute, but requires a balancing of the reasonableness of the employee's actions in light of any foreseeable adverse consequences of such disclosures.  For example, if an employee were to raise a concern about security procedures, and revealed sensitive information that could be used to evade legitimate security protections, a court might find that the disclosure is not protected.  However, if the disclosure is a good faith attempt to apply public pressure or government action to improve safety, then that should be protected.

ATU Local 689's Chief Safety Officer, Anthony Garland, told the newsletter that WMATA management still prohibits employees from speaking to the media about safety, fraud or mismanagement. He adds, "The Authority's policy needs to be addressed by the union. An employee's federally protected right to speak to the media or any entity investigating safety, an accident, fraud, etc. must be respected by the Authority." I agree.

The ATU Local 689 newsletter raises a concern that WMATA management have failed to fully implement the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). "WMATA has merely made moderate attempts at implementing measures to appease the Board of Directors and local media." To the extent that WMATA still restricts protected activities by employees, and attempts to channel them through a chain of command, I agree again. Local 689 is calling on WMATA to revise its whistleblower policy so it is consistent with federal law, and then train its supervisors about the workers' rights to raise safety concerns.

It would be good if area media recognized that it was in their interests and in the public interest, if they would join in the call for a clear WMATA policy protecting all manner of disclosures about safety, waste, fraud and mismanagement. The media could help by publicizing the protections of NTSSA so that everyone in the community, including WMATA employees, would be aware of their rights to raise their concerns publicly.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) submitted comments to the Department of Labor (DOL) on three sets of regulations for whistleblower cases. DOL had issued the interim regulations on August 31, 2010. One set of regulations, 29 CFR Part 1982, covers whistleblower cases from both the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20109, and the National Transit System Security Act (NTSSA), 6 U.S.C. § 1142. Another new set, 29 CFR Part 1983, covers claims under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), 15 U.S.C. § 2087. The third set amends the regulations at 29 CFR Part 1978 that apply to truck driver cases under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). NWC's comments on these regulations are substantially the same for all three sets. I raised concerns about (1) requiring 15-days notice before filing claims in U.S. District Court when the statutes do not contain any such limitation on going to federal court; (2) lack of specificity in allowing staff to redact information from employer submissions to comply with "other confidentiality laws;" and (3) adding a difficult procedural hurdle for parties by requiring that all issues to be raised to the Administrative Review Board (ARB) be stated in the petition for review that must be filed within 10 days of issuance of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On this last point, I am concerned that the ARB will use this procedural hurdle to avoid deciding cases on the merits. It will also discourage attorneys from taking whistleblower cases to the DOL and make it harder for us to find attorneys for all the whistleblowers that contact us for help. You can read my comments by following these links: CPSIA, STAA, NTSSA and FRSA. You can explore the public dockets containing other comments by following these links: CPSIA, STAA, NTSSA and FRSA.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today Lindsey Williams and I spoke with the Executive Board of Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).Local 689 represents employees of Washington DC's Metro system. Lindsey is the Advocacy Director of the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC). We spoke about the National Transit System Security Act (NTSSA) of 2007, 6 USC §1142.

I have been looking forward to this opportunity for a long time. For too long, I have read local media stories about how Metro employees were too afraid of retaliation to raise concerns about safety. This can't be right, I thought.  There is a new law designed specifically to protect transit workers from retaliation.  It was a law that came out of a concern for the role that safe public transit plays in our national security.  Congress passed it as part of enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

You can read the FAQ I prepared on NTSSA, together with my collection of web links, newspaper stories and blog posts. Everyone on the Board signed up for the NWC's Action Alerts. In our discussion, we noticed that NTSSA could be the sole remedy for transit workers who are fired during their probationary period for refusing to drive in unsafe conditions. Also, union grievances can be faster than the Department of Labor process. Still, it was obvious to all of us that workers' advocates need to know about all the tools in the belt to decide which ones might be best for any particular case. We agreed to continue talking about steward training to make sure that all Metro employees learn about their NTSSA rights when they face retaliation. I thank Jackie Jeter, President of Local 689, for the invitation to speak.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In June 2009, a Metrorail accident near Ft. Totten in Washington, DC, killed nine people. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a report this summer that found Metro lacked a "safety culture." Now an internal Metro report finds the same problem. Katherine Shaver wrote about the report for the Washington Post. While 60 percent of Metro employees witnessed a safety concern, 30 percent of them did not report it. Shaver says that fear of retaliation is cited as a reason.  Her article fails to mention the two federal laws that grant public transit employees legal protection when they raise safety concerns. These laws are the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20109, and the National Transit System Security Act (NTSSA). Both are part of Public Law 110-53, the 9/11 Commission Act passed in 2007. See § 1413 (NTSSA) and § 1521 (FRSA). I have written about these laws before here, here, here and here. Later this month, I have an appointment to speak to officers of Local 689 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) about these legal protections. I feel like Glinda, the Good Witch of the North (from the Wizard of Oz), telling transit workers that they have had these legal protections for years.  They just need someone to tell them about these protections so they can feel more confident that they are protected from retaliation. If it won't be the Metro Board, Metro management, or the Washington Post, then it will be me.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Department of Labor has issued new regulations for whistleblower claims under four new laws. These laws include two laws included in the 2007 law that adopted recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the National Transit Systems Security Act (NTSSA) and the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). This law also updated provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) which protects truck drivers, and DOL has announced new interim regulations on STAA whistleblower cases. Finally, DOL has issued new regulations for whistleblower claims under the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued the regulations, and will receive public comments until November 1, 2010. You can access all the rules through the Federal Register.

I have complained before to OSHA about rules that add hurdles for whistleblowers, and can derail a case away from being decided on the merits.  The one that irks me the most is the rule in 29 CFR 24.110 that requires parties appealing an judge's decision to the Administrative Review Board (ARB) to list in the petition for review every issue they will raise on appeal. This listing of issues is not required in appeals from federal court. The time to list all the issues is when the lawyer has finished reviewing the record to write the brief. If the ARB wants to assess from the petition whether the case is worthy of further review, then it is sufficient to require that an appellant list enough issues to justify review.  There is no reason to add that any issue omitted from the petition is waived -- other than to create a hurdle that can justify dismissing some issues or cases on grounds other than the merits.  That is a purpose contrary to the remedial purpose of protecting employees who put the public interest ahead of their own job security. Sadly, the new rules expand the requirement for detailed petitions for review, and the waiver of issues not raised.  See, for example, 29 CFR 1983.110(a) for CPSIA claims. Perhaps more significant, the new rules prevent the ARB from reversing an ALJ's factual findings whenever the ARB finds "substantial evidence" to support the ALJ's position. The Secretary of Labor used to conduct de novo review of the whole record, which provided better assurance that the DOL's final decisions reflected the remedial purpose of protecting whistleblowers.  The only reason for the narrower standard of review is to make the ARB's job easier. I think protecting whistleblowers is more important. I am also sad to see that the new rules require giving the DOL 15 days notice before a whistleblower files a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. The purpose of this rule is to give DOL a chance to issue a final order before the case goes to District Court.  That is contrary to the legislative purpose of giving whistleblowers a fresh bite at the apple if DOL has taken too long to decide a case.  While it is helpful to have rules for the many FRSA, NTSSA, STAA and CPSIA cases in the pipeline, these rules fall short of the change I was hoping for. The full OSHA statement about the interim rules follows in the continuation of this post.

 

 

OSHA announces interim final rules and

invites public comment on whistleblower procedures

 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration published in the Aug. 31 Federal Register interim final rules that will help protect workers who voice safety, health, and security concerns. The regulations, which establish procedures for handling worker retaliation complaints, allow filing by phone as well as in writing and filing in languages other than English.

“When workers believe their employers are violating certain laws or government regulations, they have the right to file a complaint and should not fear retaliation. Silenced workers are not safe workers,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels. “Changes in the whistleblower provisions make good on the promise to stand by those workers who have the courage to come forward when they believe their employer is violating the law and cutting corners on a variety of safety, health and security concerns in the affected industries.”

The regulations, which cover workers filing complaints in the railroad, public transit, commercial motor carrier, and consumer product industries, also create greater consistency among various OSHA complaint procedures. The interim final rules establish procedures and time frames for handling complaints under the whistleblower sections of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

These regulations are effective immediately. Comments must be submitted by Nov. 1, 2010, and can be sent to www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, or by mail or fax.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the OSH Act and 18 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various commercial motor carrier, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, railroad, public transportation, securities, and health care reform laws. New fact sheets on these statutes and additional information will be available at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

 

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

One of the problems of our current patchwork approach to whistleblower protection is that much of the public is unaware of the protections that do exist in the law today. A case in point would be yesterday's story in the Washington Examiner. In a story called, "Metro strengthening protections for 'whistleblowers,'" writer Markham Heid reports on an action by the Board of Directors of our local transit system. "The measures include the implementation of federal laws that provide protection for whistleblowers . . .," the article says. I would say that there is nothing the Metro board needs to do to "implement" the federal protection for whistleblowers.  It already exists. I wrote here, here and here before about the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20109, and the National Transit System Security Act (NTSSA). Both are part of Public Law 110-53, the 9/11 Commission Act passed in 2007. See § 1413 (NTSSA) and § 1521 (FRSA). The key points for current Metro employees is that federal law now protects them when they raise safety concerns to anyone -- their supervisors, federal overseers, their members of Congress, or the media. If they experience retaliation, they have 180 days to file a written complaint with OSHA. They will have access to the same procedures that have protected environmental and nuclear whistleblowers for 40 years. Metro employees are welcome to come here to the National Whistleblowers Center if they want legal advice about raising safety issues, or raising claims of retaliation. Heid's article reports that the Metro board is establishing its own Whistleblower Hearing Panel. Myself, I would rather see whistleblowers pursue the Department of Labor process, starting with the OSHA complaint, where they can own a cause of action and receive a due process hearing that is not controlled by Metro management. Is a management panel really going to award compensatory damages and attorney fees against itself? Management may be lauded for its recognition that whistleblowers are their friends in the cause of safety. Metro and the media can both do a better job of informing employees of the actual remedies that already exist.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's Washington Post (Metro page B-1) reports on "a blunt assessment" of Washington DC's Metro transit administration.  Retired Metro manager David L. Gunn wrote the report.  Among other problems, it finds a "shoot the messenger" phenomenon "that discourages employees from raising safety concerns." The report is particularly sobering in light of last year's collision that killed nine people.  Metro has had other fatal accidents since then.

I know a fix for the "shoot the messenger" phenomenon. Any Metro manager, union official, or journalist could help.  One change could assure that safety issues are raised and addressed in the warm glow of pubic attention.  Every Metro train operator, bus driver, maintenance worker and manager needs to know that a recent federal law now protects them from retaliation when they raise safety concerns. 

Last October, I wrote here about how the Washington Post could report on the National Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 (NTSSA). NTSSA has given every transit system employee the right to put safety first, to bypass the chain of command, and to disobey unsafe or illegal orders. Under NTSSA, every Metro employee has legal protection if they choose to speak to a newspaper about safety concerns. They would be protected if they follow safety rules and run "late" as a result. Victims of retaliation need to know that they have only 180 days to file a complaint (some laws allow only 30 days).

I would be happy to speak to any group of Metro employees about their rights under NTSSA and how to enforce them.   Just call me, 202-342-6980, Ext. 112.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 14, the Washington Post ran a story on Metro drivers going "Strictly by the Book" (p. B-1). The story highlights safety issues that reach beyond Metro. That the Post's writer would be concerned about the disruption reveals a prevalent but dangerous attitude that speed is more important than safety.

As an advocate for whistleblowers, I am particularly concerned that the bus drivers speaking to the reporter were afraid of retaliation. The National Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 (NTSSA) has given every transit system employee the right to put safety first, to bypass the chain of command, and to disobey unsafe or illegal orders. Under NTSSA, every Metro employee has legal protection if they choose to speak to a newspaper about safety concerns. They would be protected if they follow safety rules and run "late" as a result.

That some Metro employees were afraid to speak shows that this new law is either unpublicized or ineffective. I think it is both. The Post could do a service by explaining that federal laws protect many health and safety whistleblowers. Victims of retaliation need to know that they have only 180 days to file a complaint (some laws allow only 30 days).
Awareness of the law will do no good, however, unless our government does a better job of enforcement. The Department of Labor's whistleblower program is still run by holdovers from the prior administration. They have used unfounded excuses to deny remedies to whistleblowers. They are bogged down by backlogs, poor training and inadequate resources (as found by the General Accounting Office last January). The new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, can make a dramatic improvement in the system at any time by appointing new members of the Administrative Review Board.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link