Rail employees strike vote on track

Labor leader says he will ask members to consider walkout over alleged contract violations

As a labor union threatens to strike and bring the railroad to a halt, state officials are bracing for a nightmare.

As Metro-North’s biggest labor union threatens to strike and bring the railroad to a screeching halt, Connecticut officials are bracing for a commuting nightmare that would leave hundreds of thousands of passengers scrambling to get to work.

“A strike would cause gridlock unlike anything we have seen,” said Jim Gildea, chairman of the Connecticut Commuter Railroad Council.

“I do not believe that Metro-North would be able to offer anywhere near the level of service they do now,” Gildea said.

James Fahey, director of the executive board of the Association of Commuter Rail Employees, on Tuesday said he will ask his 2,400 members — mostly conductors and engineers crucial to running the trains — to vote on whether they want to strike over what he said are repeated violations of negotiated contracts by Metro-North.

“In the next few days, we will ask our members to authorize a legalized strike, citing major contractual and safety issues,” Fahey told the Journal News. “I want to apologize to the riding public in advance.”

Metro-North officials quickly dismissed talk of a strike, predicting it will not happen, and called the threatened work stoppage an “unlawful” act.

“We are continuing to have very productive talks with ACRE and expect to resolve any outstanding issues,” said Aaron Donovan, a Metro-North spokesman.

“However, to threaten hundreds of thousands of Metro-North customers with an unlawful strike is completely irresponsible,” Donovan said.

A six-week Metro-North strike in 1983 — the last major walk off by railroad unions — left 90,000 commuters with no choice but to find alternative means of transportation. Today, Metro-North transports about 280,000 commuters per-day.

Firing and hiring

Fahey issued a long list of grievances against MetroNorth, including lengthy delays in processing disability pensions and the resulting loss of insurance coverage for members.

Other complaints include firing employees based on security camera images and hiring applicants from outside Metro-North instead of giving preference to inhouse workers capable of doing the job.

Fahey, who did not return calls seeking comment, gained support late Tuesday afternoon when the five general chairmen of the union agreed to put a strike vote before members.

All 12 Metro-North unions are working under expired contracts that remain in effect while they negotiate new labor agreements.

Metro-North officials said a strike is not likely because the union’s grievances do not rise to a “major issue” designation under the Federal Railway Act, which establishes a federal arbitration process to resolve grievances and potentially avoid strikes.

Those officials added the list of complaints Fahey issued are considered “minor issues” under federal law and must be resolved between the railroad and the union.

Judd Everhart, a spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, said the state is watching the dispute. “We are monitoring developments and are optimistic that such an action can be avoided,” he said.

“Stay calm”

State Sen. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton and co-chairwoman of the General Assembly’s Transportation Committee, said a strike is not what Connecticut commuters need.

“It will be received terribly,” Boucher said. “As it is, commuters have a lot of issues and this has to be nipped in the bud. It could just be saber rattling, but it’s a dangerous process.”

Jim Cameron, founder of the Commuter Action Group and a Hearst Connecticut Media columnist, urged commuters “stay calm” over talk of a possible strike.

“I do not think commuters should be alarmed by this sabre rattling by the unions,” Cameron said.

“I have every confidence that the railroad and unions will negotiate a new contract, as they have done for decades,” Cameron added. “A strike would be illegal and hurt the strikers as much, if not more, than commuters.”

Boucher said union members could face consequences if they walked off their jobs in violation of the established process.

“It’s a risky move and it’s never good to have heated words over negotiated settlements,” Boucher said. “My guess is the union would run the risk of losing pensions and membership and I think the rank and file would not be interested in doing something illegal.”

FILE PHOTO