The Most Important Case Ever to Arise Under the Federal Railroad Safety Act: B & M v. Lenfest, et al
This case was brought by our firm in 1985 on behalf of the conductors on the B & M Railroad who withheld their services due to the continuing presence of unsafe working conditions. The First Circuit's 1986 landmark decision upholding the statutory right of rail employees to refuse to work under hazardous conditions was appealed to the United States Supreme Court by both the B & M and the carriers National Railway Labor Conference, but in February, 1987 the Supreme Court handed rail management a stinging rebuff when it affirmed the First Circuit's opinion.
On February 23, 1987, the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. denied the B & M Railroad's petition seeking to overturn the First Circuit Court of Appeals' landmark Federal Railroad Safety Act opinion, B & M v. Lenfest, et al. The B & M Railroad's petition was joined by the carriers' National Railway Labor Conference, who filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Railroad's petition. Both the Railroad and the carriers ' Conference sought to convince the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeals' strong decision confirming the right of railroad workers to refuse to work under hazardous conditions would undermine the right of carriers to prevent strikes under the Railway Labor Act.
Cahill, Goetsch & DiPersia filed a brief on behalf of the defendant rail employees opposing the Railroad's position, and the United States Supreme Court sided with rail labor by issuing an Order denying the Railroad's petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court's ruling is final, and establishes B & M v. Lenfest, et al. as a landmark case guaranteeing significant rights to refuse to work under hazardous conditions to all railroad workers throughout the nation.
Rail labor did not lose any time in wielding the sword of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) originally forged by Congress in 1980 and finally sharpened by the Supreme Court's 1987 affirmance of Lenfest. The employees on the Springfield Terminal Railroad Company (the short-line Railroad to which the notorious Guilford Transportation Company leased the Maine Central Railroad, the Portland Terminal Company, and the Boston and Maine Railroad) notified the carrier on November 6, 1987 that unsafe working conditions existed that required immediate correction. The carrier failed to cooperate in correcting those conditions, and after the death of a conductor on November 9, 1987, the employees sent the carrier a telegram advising that "a serious situation exists requiring emergency measures." When the carrier still failed to act, the employees withheld their services beginning on November 12, 1987. The carrier responded by declaring that all employees who failed to report for work were considered to have resigned, and proceeded to hire replacements.
On June 15, 1988, a special Public Law Board set up pursuant to the FRSA found that unsafe conditions presenting imminent danger of death or serious injury did exist and that the employees' work stoppage was made in good faith. Furthermore, the Board ordered the carrier to reinstate the hundreds of employees who withheld their services and awarded them full back pay and benefits. This ruling constitutes a stunning blow to Guilford Transportation's anti-union efforts, and puts railroads throughout the nation on notice that the FRSA is a powerful weapon for combating hazardous working conditions that rail labor will not hesitate to use when necessary.
