Question:
If my case is to be used here, I think it is impearative that you know the facts of the case:
In my case, there were several key elements that Judge Jansen refused to consider. One was the fact, that in Roadways own policy manual, it stated that a driver shall inspect his tires on any dual axle when hauling any amount of hazardous materials. Also, In the State of Indiana's Commercial Drivers Manuel it states that while driving in very hot weather the driver shall inspect their tires on any duel axle every two hours or 100 miles which ever comes first.
Now on the question of reasonable, Roadway is know as a company that runs recap ties on all of their trailers, and the company motto stated to drivers is, run them till they blow. As a novice driver pulling doubles for Roadway, I had experienced several tire blow outs while transporting haz-mat. One tire blow out was so severe that it created a crack the whip effect and I nearly had my rear trailer plow into a motorist in the passing lane.
Over the course of time, I encountered numerous tire blow outs on roadways trailers, therefore I determined as captain of my ship that it was necessary to inspect my tires every two hours or 100 miles on any duel axle, in very hot weather while hauling any amount of haz-mat materials. Which by the way, was also in the FMCSR's at the time, but since has been removed. Wonder why??
I therefore had a reasonable fear from my previous experience operating Roadways trailers on recap tires, that I could loose control of the vehicle and kill myself or another motorist. I was disciplined and ultimately terminated by Roadway, for my refusal to stop performing my own tire inspections while hauling any amount of haz-mat.
Roadway argued at the hearing, that I was trying to burn up my hours, so that I would not be available for dispatch because I did not want to work. My payroll records show that I was one of the new terminal drivers, that constantly did five to seven tours of duty every week for the company. I was out working even when drivers under and over my seniority position were sitting at home waiting on work calls.
Roadway also argued that I was late in making delivery to the regional terminals when I performed my haz-mat tire checks. If you had ten hours driving to deliver, roadway would give their drivers an additional two hours break time. I would use one of those hours to perform my haz-mat tire checks, leaving an hour break for the total twelve hours to get the load to the regional terminal, therefore all of my clock punches showed that I made delivery in the twelve hours alloted by Roadway.
Given all the facts in Monde vs Roadway: Judge Jansen ruled the following,
In [Monde v. Roadway Express, Inc.[/quote], the car driver, Jerry Monde stopped his vehicle to perform tire inspections every 100 miles or two hours when he had any amount of hazardous materials on the trailers, even though the trailers were not placarded. Judge Rudolf Jansen found that Monde could not rely on the STAA and 49 C.F.R. Sec. 392.7 to protect him from discharge for performing these tire inspection stating as follows:Quote:
To interpret sections 392.7 and 396.13 as providing protection for every drivers refusal to drive when premised upon even the most unreasonable of safety concerns, serves to tie an employers hands with respect to personnel control. Monde’s apprehensions regarding the safety of his equipment were outside the bounds of reason. I find that an unreasonable apprehension is not converted to protected activity by sections 392.7 and 396.13.
Here Judge Jansen's ruling is flawed, I was reasonable due to my previous experience with tire blow outs of Roadway tire recaps. Accidents in which I could loose control on a public roadway and testified to, could have happened in which I could have killed another motorist or myself on a pubic highway.
In Judge Jansen's ruling he has allowed, a tyrannical employer to intimidate and retaliate against their drivers over safety issues. His ruling has and will continue to chill drivers, over safety issues while operating a commercial motor vehicle on public roadways. In the long term, drivers will no longer concern themselves with safety issue of tires, due to the fact that if they refuse to operate or perform inspections, they will see themselves terminated as I was.
In my opinion Judge Jansen has set the commercial motor carrier safety regulations back to the stone age. The regulations are no longer effective and the very judicial system that has been in-trusted to uphold the law and the safety of the motoring public, has run a muck. Judges do make wrong and bad decisions and when the law is not upheld as it was in my case, I can only think of one statement that fits.
The law is an (edited), as so eloquently stated by our sixteenth President. Abraham Lincoln.
I may have lost my job with Roadway, but I can at least sleep at night knowing that I was safe on the public highways and my concern for safety resulted in no one loosing their life.
That in the final analysis gives me solace and the belief that I performed my job duties correctly, to the companies polices, State Of Indiana CMV laws and the FMCSR's.
Now the whole case history is told.
Catch you on the flip!

Answer:

And where was Danny Barton & Gang on your discharge? Did they help you at committee in Chicago? Did our Teamsters help your case?

Answer:

The Teamsters did not help Jerry out at all. As a matter of fact, the BA testified for the company.
Interesting point here - RW's handbook indicated that tires should be checked every 2 hours or 100 miles on any trailer containing haz-mat. No distinction was made with respect to whether or not the load was placarded.
I agree with Scalehouse and think Judge Jansen's decision was wrong.

Answer:

In my opinion the driver acted reasonably in Monde v. Roadway. Unfortunately, the Judge did not agree. The point of citing the case is that DOL ruled that the driver's discretion to inspect his equipment is not unfettered. In other words, DOL has inserted the word "reasonable" into 392.7 and 396.13.

Answer:



Answer:

I assume by DOL you mean dept of Labor? If so, is it within their power to change the rules you stated?

Answer:

Yes. But FMCSA predecessors have also interpreted it that way.

Answer:

There ought to be an explicit definition of "reasonable" in the rulebooks. My "reasonable" suredly embodies a different concept than someone else's.
What is "reasonable"? Is it reasonable for me to run out-of-hours for 50 miles? 100 miles? Afterall, in the vain of OTR, 100 miles is nothing compared to the 600-700 you did that day or the 2500-3000 for the last few days. Under normal circumstances, I can be reasonably safe on the road for another 100 miles.
Is it "reasonable" for me to "skip" some items during a pre-trip? Afterall, the car / trailer ran good till it got here. It might be reasonable to expect the same for the next 600 miles.
How "reasonable" will the Judge, jury & prosecutor be when they discover I only made a "reasonable" attempt to pre-trip the car & trailer only to have a mechanical defect cause an accident & have my hazmat load catch fire or kill someone?
Asshats. Can you tell I have a problem with stoopidity in authority?

Answer:

Scalehouse, is there any other avenues for you left to appeal? Or have you & Paul run up against a brick wall with the Department of Labor? What about final appeal to the Secretary of Labor. Inquiring minds want to know. Phil.

Answer:

Phil:
The case is done.

Answer:

In my case, I felt that I was reasonalbe due to the fact that I had several serious tire blow outs. The case is over and the decision is final. This issue will not be revisited, untill a recap tire blows out and either the recap goes through a windsheild, or a trailer whips into a motorist killing them.
That will be on Judge Jansen, and for him to live with. Once that happens, you will find that the companies safety departments will want to find the drivers at fault for not doing enroute inspections. Here is where the double edge sword will come into play, and the driver will be allowed to claim " thanks to Jansen" that he would have been unreasonalbe and restircted the employer, if he had done those safety enroute inspections.
Can't have it both ways, but it will have to come down to someone loosing their life first, and therefore making the FMCSR's repugnant on safety issues.
Catch you on the flip!

Answer:

True enough Scalehouse. Unfortunately in our justice system we have judges making decisions concerning whether or not car drivers are acting reasonably with regard to how they operate 80,000 pounds of equipment and lading at 50 to 65 miles per hour down the freeways