May 16, 2008

Safety Bulletin

Defective Dielectric Overshoes

Please Inspect Your Overshoes Immediately

The Union was made aware of an injury that occurred to one of our members on May 1^st.

Our brother lineworker was preparing to set a pole when he suffered a severe ankle sprain. The Company was quick to investigate the incident and was informed by the injured lineworker that he felt the cause of the accident was the new style Salisbury (purple color) dielectric overshoes. The heels of the overshoe were not centered on the sole and did not extend out to the sides of the shoe. When the lineworker was asked what he would do to prevent this incident from occurring, again he responded by saying he would use his old dielectric overshoes. The manager did convey the information to his general manager and safety representative.

On May 5^th during the lineworkers' morning meeting, the manager was made aware there were two similar incidents within the last two weeks. To his credit, the manager removed all the new style overshoes from service at his service center. The lineworkers' safety committee representatives asked the safety committee sponsor to call for an emergency safety committee meeting to discuss their concerns with the new overshoes. The intent of this meeting was to discuss the concerns with the overshoes and to ask that the overshoes be removed from service, company wide, so no other employees would be injured. The sponsor's response was that he did not think it was something the safety committee could do anything with, but he would send e-mail to the appropriate people to see if there were any problems with the overshoes. The Union contacted the Allegheny Power Safety Consultant, Wayne Rummel, and asked if he was aware of the problem with the overshoes.  He said he was unaware of any problems with the overshoes. The problem was explained to him and a request was made to have the overshoes removed from service, company wide, to prevent injury to any other employees. He was also reminded that the Company was quick to place injured employees in a program. By removing the overshoes from service this would prevent injury to employees and placing them in a program due to faulty equipment. The Safety Consultant said he would investigate and respond to the Union's request.

On May 6^th the Safety Consultant contacted the Union with the results of his investigation.  He said he had contacted several areas that were using the new overshoes and they had no problems. He also examined the overshoes from the injured lineworker's service center and found the heels were off-center and believed this was a quality control issue. He also noticed the heel did not extend to the sides of the shoes, but had a concern with the weight it would add to the shoe if it was extended. He then explained that the inside heel of the new overshoe was much deeper than other overshoes and would require a higher heel on the boot being placed in the overshoe. The Safety Consultant also said the Company would contact Salisbury to discuss the problems with the overshoes. The Safety Consultant was asked to send out information, company wide, to inform all employees about the problems and requirements to use the new overshoes.

On May 8^th, only the lineworkers, at the injured lineworker's service center were presented a document detailing issues with the new overshoes. The substation, meter readers, and other employees have not been informed of the problems associated with the new overshoes.

The Company's HPO team that designed the new overshoes specified the deeper heel on the new overshoes.

This is typical of how our Company's safety department handles safety concerns. The Union promotes a much better approach to investigating and solving these types of safety issues such as:

1 - Immediately removing the new style overshoes from service on May 5^th.

2 - Communicating to all appropriate departments the problems associated with the new overshoes.

3 - When placing the new overshoes in service, communicate the need for a higher heel on the boot being placed in the overshoes.

4 - Work more closely with safety committees to address local concerns and get information out quickly, company wide.

5 - React immediately to safety related concern brought forth by the Union.

6 - Develop a system to address safety concerns of employees that eliminates the red tape and politics of raising a safety concern. Refrain from immediately taking a defensive posture.

If our Company wants to improve our safety record, they need to make the Union an equal partner in safety related matters and divorce the safety department from the management part of the business. 

Why is it that in this case the local management tried to do the right thing only to be shut down by Greensburg Corporate Center management and specialists? 

This Safety Department has been performing in this unacceptable manner for too long. Their standard answer is always employee behavior and put them in a program. Their interest appears to be irrelevant statistics and ignoring the real problems.  It is time we fight back and challenge this department to do the right thing in the interest of safety.

 
May 7, 2008

April 16, 2008

 Utility Workers Back Obama

Your Vote Can Make Difference!

  October 8, 2007

President Sterner Speaks Out About Employee Free Choice Act!

View President Sterner's video below.

May 6,2007 

July 14, 2007 

 The Union won the Tim Chiplaskey arbitration discharge case. The Arbiter ruled the discharge was improper. Tim shall return as a memeber in good standing. The ruling stated that Tim must be made whole in every way with back pay, 401K money, any job bids denied, and all other benefits to make him whole.

This is the second arbitration case in a row that the Union has won. Many thanks go to Bob Chet who put on a great case for us. Bill Sterner and Dave Corb who really fought hard to get this case arbitrated. Spencer Epps, Joe Zimmerlink and Matt Larew really worked hard with thier research and testimony on Tim's behalf.

All participating 102M members gave an honest effort when testifying and preparing for this arbitration. Honesty always pays. 

The Union hit a home run in our March 27, 2007 Arbitration. The issue was the company not filling a retirement as a permanent vacancy. Instead they filled it as a temporary vacancy. The company denied  4 Union members 2 months of upgraded pay. This happened at Hatfields Ferry Power Station in the Coal and Ash Unit.

As a result of the company's violations of the contract they have to make whole all affected members that were denied their line of progression move ups. Including a deceased members estate because he passed away prior to this decision. They must pay all back money including adjustments to their 401k accounts. Jim Lewis really put on a great case for the Union.  Dave Corob, and Joe Zimmerlink were key players in their testimony which enabled 102 to prevail.   This is just the beginning of many more successul contract battles with Allegheny. Please read the complete document in PDF format HERE .