Safety officer refuses to testify in Upper Big Branch mine disaster
November 8, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: Fatality, fire/explosion, In this week's e-newsletter, Investigations, Latest News & Views, mine safety, What do you think?
PDF The top safety officer for Massey Energy, owner of the Upper Big Branch mine where 29 miners died in an explosion on April 5, has invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and won’t be interviewed by those investigating the disaster.
Elizabeth Chamberlin, Massey’s vice president for safety, and five other company officials have refused to answer questions about the explosion, according to The Charleston Gazette.
Up to five additional Massey managers may have also refused to testify, but the state hasn’t confirmed that.
A letter from Chamberlin to the state of West Virginia alleges that the federal mine safety agency, MSHA, is using its investigation to “divert attention and blame from itself and onto others” and charges that West Virginia’s independent investigation team have “bullied and abused” some witnesses.
Investigators deny the charges.
Preliminary information shows that methane and coal dust played a role in the fatal explosion.
Just days after the Gazette story appeared, West Virginia’s mine safety chief resigned.
Ron Wooten led the Office of Miners’ Health Safety and Training since August 2006. The resignation also came one day after West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) won a special election to fill the remaining two years of Sen. Robert Byrd’s term.
Do you think Massey’s safety chief and other managers should be required to submit to interviews involving the Upper Big Branch disaster? 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: Gov. Joe Manchin, Massey Energy, MSHA, safety officer, Upper Big Branch mine disaster
Loading ...
November 4th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by HySafe Technology and Convergence Training, MSDSonline. MSDSonline said: Via @SafetyNewsAlert Safety officer refuses to testify in Upper Big Branch mine disaster http://bit.ly/9IsxTa #osha [...]
November 4th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I think it would be impossible for these people to say anything without briniging charges upon themselves. For that reason, I think I understand why they are taking their 5th amendment rights. Even if they knew nothing about what was going on, then they get charged because they “should have known”, its a double edged sword and impossible not to get cut.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Their situation is a safety or HR professional’s nightmare come true - a worst case scenario you have been trying to convince management to take all measures to prevent, and it is possible she was not successful in getting management’s cooperation. What do you do - turn whistleblower and ruin this and future career opportunities, or continue to try to improve the situation and reduce the risk to miners and the Company plus try to keep yourself out of trouble. If she did the latter and was unsuccessful, I think a jury would hold her as guilty as those with the final authority on changes and budget. I hope she kept good notes, memos and records to defend herself.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:04 am
The 5th Ammendment may be an EHS person’s best friend.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:50 am
If these managers are refusing to talk because they knew about something and didn’t or couldn’t do anything about it, make a deal for immunity and come forward because it’s the right thing to do. If they are refusing because they are partly responsible, then find a way to make them talk. With all the advances this country of ours supposedly has, to not be able to give miners as safe an environment as possible to do their job is shameful. If the greed of the bottom line profit overrode the safety of human beings, then hold those guilty accountable.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I just have to look at the expectation we set for our hourly associates.
You are required as a condition of employement to be forthcoming and participate in ANY INVESTIGATION.
Of course we all realize you don’t take the fifth if you know nothing incriminating. Incriminating means you took actions which make you responsible for the outcome not “I tried to fix it and failed” that would be a defense under doing your due diligence. However it would point to someone higher up who did make the decision that the cost risk ratio is worth it. Well at least until something goes wrong and then they have to scramble to find someone to throw on the sword. My honest guess would be she is the VP of Safety, she made that cost risk assesment and now just needs to find someone to toss onto the sword. She probably made those decisions to improve the bottom line and consequently line her own pocket. It has been successful so far without losing too many of those pesky little people.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Richard, it is easy to look at it that way, but it isn’t necessarily the case. Even if she is “top safety officer”, chances are she has to get approval from higher up to spend money to fix something. She will have charges along with the higher ups if she had knowledge of the condition; no matter how hard she fought to get things fixed.
As Harold said, her only hope is to have plenty of documentation, but chances are the major players of the company have a lot more money to spend to point the finger at her.
November 10th, 2010 at 8:41 am
In our world of industrial safety and hygiene, maintaining our ethics and professionalism along with staying employeed is not taught or breached in many formal training sessions.
One thing I was taught in the late ’70′s as an Army Officer, and by a couple of savvy mentors in my early career, you/we need to learn how to correctly document our recommendations, actions and company reactions to protect ourselves and also other professionals in our organizations. “Executive accountability” tends to fly out the window when people with badges and subpoenas arrive.
I recommend two methods - 1)memo to record for your personal files, and if possible witnessed by a trusted ally and 2) use your time during your performance appraisal to include your comments in the document which should end up in your personnel file. This is normally easier to find in discovery proceedings by investigators. A 3rd item is strive to find an ethical organization to work for - I have for the past decade and it makes for a good work and personal life.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
I am getting older and tend to live by the theory that I don’t like anyone well enough to go to jail for and will leave the company that does not abide by good safety standards and policies. That being said, not everyone is in the position that they can just say I quit and find something else to do or company to work for. Unfortunately there are still many unethical employers. I hope for her sake and her families that she did make the recommendations and kept good documentation or her life and career is going to be in serious jepordy.
November 16th, 2010 at 8:46 am
In this situation, it would be foolish NOT to take the Fifth Amendment. MSHA will be looking to target as many people as possible for crimnal prosecution because of the high profil of this event, and to distract attention from its role. Too often, the safety professionals end up caught in the prosecutorial net because they document things well and this is seen as proof of “willful” misconduct, even when they were tryinh to remediate a situation. The government cannot MAKE her testify. MSHA lacks waterboarding authority … at least for now!
November 17th, 2010 at 3:12 am
Safety Officers are suppose to represent the best of workplace safety oversight. Safety Officers are the last line of defense for workers. If the Massey Safety Officers have simply become tools for the company they represent they become like the foxes guarding the hen house for greedy and unscrupulous owners. At this point it has become clear the company is corrupted and workplace safety rules are simply a formality with as much enforcement credibility as a thin bed sheet on a cold winter’s night. I have only one recommendation when workplace safety has been reduced to window dressing and worker safety an annoyance: Shut the operation down until the protection of people’s lives actually means something in an hazards prone industry like mining.