Driver walks off job over truck’s safety: Can company fire him?
February 28, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Transportation safety, What do you think?, whistleblower, Workers' attitudes about safety
PDF A driver raises safety questions about the truck his employer assigns him to drive. The company fires him when he refuses to drive the truck because it was leaking coolant. Does the driver get whistleblower protection?
William Beecher complained to his employer, United Auto Delivery and Recovery of Memphis, TN, that a truck had a coolant leak and other mechanical problems. A month-and-a-half later when the truck was still leaking coolant, Bleecher refused to drive it.
Bleecher told the company’s transportation manager that he wasn’t going to drive “this piece of **** truck” any longer and suggested he’d wait at home for a call when the truck was fixed. The manager said, “OK.”
When the manager reported this incident, the company’s CFO decided to fire Bleecher for walking off the job.
OSHA investigated Bleecher’s firing as a possible whistleblower violation by the employer.
Was firing prohibited by law?
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) prohibits firing an employee because “the employee … has filed a complaint … related to a violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety … regulation.”
OSHA found that operating a truck with a coolant leak is a violation of federal law which states, “A motor vehicle shall not be operated in such a condition as to likely cause an accident or a breakdown of the vehicle.”
The company said Bleecher was fired because he refused to drive another truck that was available to him.
However, the OSHA investigation found that having Bleecher drive the other truck would have been against the law because he didn’t have a commercial driver’s license required for the larger vehicle.
OSHA agreed to a hearing with the company to allow it to present evidence why Bleecher’s firing wasn’t a violation of whistleblower regulations.
No new information was provided at the meeting to change OSHA’s determination that United Auto violated the STAA by firing Bleecher.
OSHA ordered the company to:
- reinstate Bleecher to his former job with all the pay, benefits and other rights he had before he was fired
- pay Bleecher $38,447 in back pay plus interest, $20,000 for emotional distress, $40,000 in punitive damages and $10,634 in attorney fees (more than $111,000 with interest)
- remove any adverse references from Bleecher’s personnel records relating to his firing and in any request for employment references
- not retaliate against Bleecher in any manner, and
- post in its facility OSHA’s fact sheet on whistleblower protection for trucking employees.
Click here for a PDF of OSHA’s order. OSHA’s whistleblower fact sheet is included in the PDF.
What do you think about this case? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: commercial driver's license, coolant leak, Surface Transportation Assistance Act, truck driver, whistleblower
Loading ...
February 28th, 2011 at 11:03 am
“A motor vehicle shall not be operated in such a condition as to likely cause an accident or a breakdown of the vehicle.”
If after driving the truck for a month and a half in that condition, and it is still leaking anti-freeze, is it really likely that it will breakdown?
The story I read on this a few months back had many more expletives involved by the reporting employee which I thought had something to do with his termination.
March 1st, 2011 at 12:50 pm
The expletives are a valid reason for the termination of the worker. However, according to this article, the company failed to make that argument and therefore lost their case. Simply, the company needs to hire better lawyers.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Maybe the expletives became the issue after they lost their original case.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:29 pm
The lesson in this for drivers is to actually fill out those daily inspection reports. He may not have won without the documentation of the ongoing leak. The lesson for companies is take them seriously too.
March 1st, 2011 at 3:36 pm
the employeer should have listen to the employee and have taken action on fixing the truck… what’s the pourpose of having those inspection sheets if you are not going to take action.
March 3rd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
I am the attorney for William Beecher in the case mentioned. The only expletive was Will’s reference to the truck as a piece of sh-. Glenn’s advise is very good. Write it up if it is defective. It makes for a tough case when a driver notices violations of FMCSR’s on his truck and/or trailer but fails to note it on the DVIR. If he later refuses to drive it, documentation may become a problem.
Will’s claim was brought under the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act which prohibits a person from discriminating against an employee (including owner-operators for purposes of this statute) because (a) the employee files complaints with the employer and/or government “related to” violations of commercial vehicle safety regulations; or (b) refuses to drive in violation of a commercial vehicle safety regulation; or (c) refuses to drive based upon a reasonable apprehension of serious injury.
Paul O. Taylor
Attorney
Truckers Justice Center
900 West 128th Street, Suite 104
Burnsville, MN 55337
Tel. No. 651-454-5800
NOTHING IN THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS CREATING AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Paul,
I am curious. Has Will in fact returned to work and if so, how has he been received by his co-workers as well as his srperiors?
March 4th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
He has not gone back yet. He is injured but plans to return when he heals.
March 4th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
The story folks are referring to with the expletives is a completely different case. That’s why we need to ensure we have our facts straight. It involved an employee terminated for “violence in the workplace” and his language was one aspect of the termination.
March 4th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Thanks Cody. I thought this case was one in the same, but upon further review it was a different case as you stated; Formella v. U.S. Dept. of Labor. My bad. Unfortuantley, we cannot edit comments.