 |
@ for Valley Girl
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 08-09-2013 - 09:46
Valley Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it was deliberate. Think about it. They
> don't have to worry about him suing them to get
> his job back. Any "blame" for him being
> reinstated is placed on the three-member board --
> not them.
That's not how it works. Under the Railway Labor Act, he can't sue to get his job back. Any appeals of the initial dismissal of the employee by the railroad follow RLA protocols and culminate, as in this instant case, in it being heard by an arbitrator from the NMB. Each side, usually a Labor Relations officer from the railroad and a General Chairman from the union, present their respective cases. The dismissed employee may or may not even attend the hearing. Typically, the railroad's representative makes a case for the company's side, while the union representative makes a case for the dismissed employee. Eventually, the arbitrator makes his or her ruling, which is the end of the process.
In some instances that are allegedly racially motivated, an employee or group of employees may file an EEO lawsuit, but not here. This was purely a discipline case.
I should point out that the goal of the railroad is to try to not have to pay the employee his or her lost earnings. Whether he's reinstated is secondary. So in the case, the man was returned to work but the railroad didn't have to pay him his back pay.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it was deliberate. Think about it. They
> don't have to worry about him suing them to get
> his job back. Any "blame" for him being
> reinstated is placed on the three-member board --
> not them.
That's not how it works. Under the Railway Labor Act, he can't sue to get his job back. Any appeals of the initial dismissal of the employee by the railroad follow RLA protocols and culminate, as in this instant case, in it being heard by an arbitrator from the NMB. Each side, usually a Labor Relations officer from the railroad and a General Chairman from the union, present their respective cases. The dismissed employee may or may not even attend the hearing. Typically, the railroad's representative makes a case for the company's side, while the union representative makes a case for the dismissed employee. Eventually, the arbitrator makes his or her ruling, which is the end of the process.
In some instances that are allegedly racially motivated, an employee or group of employees may file an EEO lawsuit, but not here. This was purely a discipline case.
I should point out that the goal of the railroad is to try to not have to pay the employee his or her lost earnings. Whether he's reinstated is secondary. So in the case, the man was returned to work but the railroad didn't have to pay him his back pay.
