|
|
From: Jed Dodd, General Chairman Date: October 18, 2001 Dear Brothers and Sisters: A number of members have asked about a lawsuit currently pending against the Pennsylvania Federation, which was brought by Brothers Sean Ferris and Nick Guarnieri. I thought you would want to know the status of this matter. As you may recall, during the 1999 Pennsylvania Federation Convention, the delegates voted overwhelmingly to amend the Federation's Constitution and By-Laws to eliminate two vice chair positions. This change was motivated by the long term financial problems of the Federation, based upon declining membership and regular increases in costs. The delegates weighed several alternatives, including ones presented by Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri to eliminate vice chairs other than them. However, the delegates decided that the most appropriate cuts were in Districts 8 and 9 of which they held the position of Vice Chairman. Right after the Convention, Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri sued the Federation and all of its officers. They alleged that we had arranged the change in the Constitution in retaliation for their support for Brother Paul Dominic in the 1999 officer elections. They claimed that is a violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Originally, the complaint was filed as a class action on behalf of the members of District 8 and 9. The complaint asked the court for a preliminary injunction, ordering the Federation to reinstate Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri to their jobs. However, in November 1999, Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri amended the complaint to eliminate the class action allegations, and to add a demand for money damages. They have since informed the Court that they are not seeking to be reinstated. Thus, this case is only about money damages for Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri. As part of their case, Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri are seeking money for back pay; for damages equal to pay they would earn until they would have retired at age 72; for mental anguish and emotional distress; for their medical bills (including those bills already paid by their Federation insurance); and punitive damages. The papers filed with the Court show that they are asking for more than one million dollars in damages. It is important to note that as of September 1, 1999, Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri had a contractual right to return to work for the carrier, at which time they would each have earned as much or more than they earn as a Federation officer. However, neither of them ever reported to work, or even reported for a company medical examination. Instead, they both applied for insurance benefits on the grounds that they were mentally disabled as a result of losing their jobs. Brother Guarnieri applied for workers compensation benefits claiming an on the job injury. Attached to this letter is the decision of the Industrial Commission of Ohio Hearing Officer (claim number 99-618477) denying this claim. That decision is currently on appeal. The Federation views the complaint filed by Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri as lacking in merit, and we have contested the case in order to protect the assets of the Federation. While we have been open to compromise, Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri have remained so unreasonable that the Federation has no choice but to have the case go to trial. In support of their claim for damages, Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri stated their intent to produce expert witnesses to testify about their supposedly serious mental and physical injuries arising from the elimination of their positions. Our lawyer filed a motion, asking the Court to block this testimony because the supposed experts were not competent to give such testimony. For example, Brother Ferris wanted to present a pathologist to give testimony about his psychiatric condition. On July 20, 2001, the Court ruled that Brother Ferris' expert could not testify in this case, and that Brothers Guarnieri's expert would be limited in his testimony. The case has been on the Court trial list since July 2000. The Judge, not the parties, decides when the case should go to trial. We believe that the Convention delegates had every right to decide how many officers the Federation should have, and which ones to eliminate. We are convinced that the legal and factual allegations of Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri are simply incorrect or untrue. While we would like to resolve the dispute amicably, Brothers Ferris and Guarnieri have made such unreasonable demands that it appears that no settlement is possible. We therefore intend to fight what we believe is a merit less lawsuit in order to protect the rights of our members and to protect the resources of the Federation necessary to service the membership.
The
Industrial Commission of Ohio Claim
Number: 99-518477 LT-ACC-OSIF-COV PCN: 2012251 Nicholas R. Guarnieri BROTHERHOOD
OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY OF WAY EMPLOYEES Date
of Injury: 8/20/1999 Risk Number:
605438-0 This claim has been previously disallowed. This matter was heard on 08/31/2001 before District Hearing Officer Gary J. Frame pursuant to the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 4121.34 and 4123.511 on the following: APPEAL flied by Claimant on 08/03/2001 from the order of the Administrator dated 07/25/2001. Issue: 1) Injury Or Occupational Disease Allowance Notices Were mailed to the Claimant, the employer, their respective representatives and the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation not less than 14 days prior to this date, and the following were present at the hearing: APPEARANCE FOR THE CLAIMANT: Paulino APPEARANCE FOR THE EMPLOYER: None APPEARANCE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: None The order of the Administrator dated 07/25/2001, is vacated. It is the order of the District Hearing Officer that the FROI-1, filed 02/18/2000 and refiled on 06/29/2001, is denied. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the claimant did not sustain an injury in the course of and arising out of employment. This order is based on the 03/09/2001 independent medical review of Dr. Mitchell. The Hearing Officer also finds that the claimant has not presented any medical evidence from a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist regarding the diagnosis of any psychological conditions or their causal relationship to the claimant’s job activities. In addition, the Hearing Officer finds that the 01/02/1998 office note of Dr. Chukwumerije diagnoses high blood pressure at that time, well prior to the incidents which the claimant alleges were the cause of this condition. Therefore, this claim is disallowed. All relevant evidence has been reviewed, and considered, In rendering this decision. An Appeal (IC-12) from this order may be filed within 14 days of the receipt of the order. The Appeal should be sent to the Industrial Commission of Ohio, Canton District Office, 400 Third Street, S.E., Ste 1, Canton OH 44702. Page 1 |