Is it greed, incompetence or is it just plain politics that would cause a government agency to risk the lives of the riding public. We have told the TA that sending signal personnel across divisional lines is suicidal, they are unfamiliar with the areas. There is already a preponderance of evidence that the TA cares nothing for employee safety. Are they now including the riding public in their "safety be damned policies?"

A dangerous concept is in the process of becoming a reality. The Transit Authority management is willing to send our signal maintainers across divisional boundaries in order to further reduce their labor costs. For the senior maintainers and helpers I need say no more, they already know the hazards involved. For those of you who may not be aware of these dangers speak to those who are more experienced. I have asked our lawyer and our MOW safety person to work with me on this, we reached an agreement after discussing the dangers with senior maintainers that we should invoke the "Gunn-Hall" agreement. An agreement which in fact would put a screeching halt to the process until sufficient research on the matter could help us to determine whether or not to put this practice into place system wide. A letter was written for the approval of our department head. The letter was produced in plenty of time for presentation during the pick hearings; I could not however convince him to implement it. After the pick meetings were completed, I called and asked them again to put it through, I was told over the telephone by our Division Chairman that this was being done. I filed a grievance that could be used as a support for the Gunn-Hall agreement letter. On attending a union meeting on Tuesday night (9/19/00) I was told that my grievance hearing was scheduled for the next day, further, that they were not going to process the Gunn-Hall agreement letter (a setup? -You Bet!). I demanded that it be put forth immediately, the department head refused. The answer "I just don’t want to do it". Ultimately, I hold the individual in charge, as well as those who support him in this, totally responsible for any accidents, deaths or disciplinary problems that will occur because of this wanton disregard for human life. This is our union representation, if they don’t speak out against management, then who will? The signal section meeting that followed was a strong indication of TWU leadership in action. It was loud, rowdy, and unorganized. The meeting included attempts at intimidation, and out and out assault that could have very well cost me the use of my eye. The simple fact of the matter is that I would not hesitate for a moment to press charges against this individual were it not for the fact that he was once a friend of mine. I would like to thank Clarence Little, and Julio Rivera, two members of the TWU-100 executive board for assisting me in yesterday’s grievance hearing. I did not know who would be sent from the signal section to represent me, I did know however, that they would be sent by the same signal group that opposes this effort. I knew that I needed someone outside the sphere of TA signal influence, also, that I needed someone who knew what he/she was doing.

Clarence and Julio (candidate for VP Maintenance of Way) certainly fit the bill. Clarence sat with me as representative during the hearing. Julio had just heard about the problems I was having and called me at the hearing center (Livingston Street) to give me the benefit of his well-documented expertise as a hearing officer. That seems to be the way it goes throughout all of New Directions. We give our help to any union member, no matter what department he/she may be in; this includes all of our brothers and sisters in the buses. We even have message boards on our web sites where employees can lodge a complaint, or ask for assistance on a specific matter. We don’t know the answers to all the questions, but we know where to send them in order to find out. Try to find one of these on the Local 100 web site.

The untimely notification of a hearing (21 hours), and the fact that the appeal to the arbitrator had been scheduled to take place three days after the hearing made two things crystal clear. First of all, the outcome of the initial hearing seemed to be a foregone conclusion, since the appeal had already been scheduled. If there was ever any doubt about it, that doubt was quickly vanquished by labor relations representative who told me during the hearing that the arbitration was already scheduled for Friday. He seemed rather disappointed when I explained to him that there wasn’t going to be any arbitration hearing on Friday. That in fact I had a right to appeal, according to the contract:

"at any time within fifteen (15) days after said decision has been made at Step 2". Both he and the Step two hearing officer were unaware of this clause in the contract and so I showed it to them. I am now waiting for the decision to be faxed to me. I will use the 15 days to gather as much evidence as possible to support our position on the dangerous action.

The TA may still hope to win at the final arbitration. Should they succeed, people will die. They rely primarily on three things The union’s misuse of available legal resources, the unions well documented fear of a good fight (their own self-interest) and finally the good old boy network of their long established system of collaboration.

While I was at the hearing I was asked if I wanted to be heard on my other grievance (I had filed one protesting the telephone pick as opposed to doing it in person). I explained it was a violation of our seniority rights to deprive us an opportunity to visualize (in person) all the available jobs to pick from. Labor relations jumped in with something to the effect that no one else has an in person pick. Clarence Little jumped right back with "they do in the stations department". I will be awaiting the decisions on this too before filing an appeal.

Finally, it might well be said what right has Kehoe to file these grievances on our behalf? Answer: The union told me to fax them to labor relations. I replied with "don’t you want a copy of them too?" Yeah, you can fax one to me at the union hall. I am sick of waiting for these people to act; I’m doing it myself. Don’t like it? Then fire me! Dammit anyhow I can darn sure use the rest. While we’re at it, how about getting your butts down to a union meeting. This is your fight too. Unlike those in office, I need all the help I can get!

Follow-up on this story: The article was written and printed for distribution on 9/21/200, it was distributed on 9/22/2000. Four hours after distribution I was notified that the pick had been postponed. I certainly hope someone is going to look into this complaint. I wrote and sent by fax another request to the department head to process the Gunn-Hall agreement. The letter was faxed immediately after distribution on this article began.