Click for next page ( 45

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 44
44 On track outside the limits of an interlocking or a con- hazards associated with a task or work location and the asso- trolled point; ciated level of protection. Given the similarities in most of Where the lone worker is able to visually detect the the processes, this section of the report will provide a sample approach of a train moving at the maximum authorized of the practices from three of the five systems: NYCT, MBTA, speed on that section of track and clear the tracks 15 s and the River LINE. before the train reaches the work area; Where no power-operated tools or railroad maintenance machines are in use within earshot of the lone worker; New York City Transit--Safety Rule Dispute Resolution Process and Where the ability of the lone worker to hear and see NYCT supervisors are directed to utilize the Safety approaching trains and other on-track equipment is not Rule Dispute Resolution Form when a TWU-represented impaired by background noise, lights, precipitation, employee or group of employees asserts that the work fog, passing trains, or any other physical conditions. requested violates a safety rule or procedure. These forms must be made available from the supervisor at the work When using ITD, the worker must fill out the Statement of location to any TWU-represented employee who wishes On-Track Safety for a Lone Worker and request permission to raise such an allegation. In such cases, only work rel- to enter the mainline using ITD by calling the LRC using ating to the allegation stops until the dispute resolution radio or cell phone and providing a description of the work to process is completed. All work not related to the allegation be performed, the location by chain marker or station, and his continues. or her radio call number. Section 1 of the form is completed by the employee who A worker cannot enter the mainline until LRC gives him is making the allegation. If a group of employees is asserting or her instructions to do so. The worker must repeat back any the violation, one employee completes the form on behalf of instructions received from LRC before entering the yard or mainline tracks. When the work is complete, the worker must the group. The information must be as specific as possible. not foul the track, and LRC must be notified that the worker After completing this section, the employee gives it to the is clear of all mainline tracks. supervisor identified on the form. Upon the approach of a train on any mainline track or The supervisor and the employee discuss the issue and the adjacent track, the worker must clear all tracks. A lone worker applicable rules, and the supervisor must complete Section 2, retains the absolute right to use on-track safety protection noting his or her explanation and actions, and if the employee other than ITD if he or she deems it necessary, and to occupy agreed or disagreed. If agreement is reached, work may resume. a place of safety until another form of on-track safety can If the employee disagrees, the supervisor must note the be established. A lone worker using ITD for on-track safety disagreement. The concern is then raised immediately to a while fouling a track may not occupy a position or engage manager. Each employee must sign the form, noting the time in any activity that would interfere with his or her ability to and date. maintain a vigilant lookout for approaching trains moving in either direction. A lone worker who uses ITD to establish In Section 3, the manager notifies the TWU and MOW on-track safety must first complete a written Statement of Operations immediately, interviews the supervisor and the On-Track Safety. The lone worker must produce the Statement employee, and renders a decision. The interview may be of On-Track Safety when requested by a FRA representative conducted by telephone. If the issue is resolved, the manager or supervisor (7). must complete this section of the form by the end of the shift. If the issue cannot be resolved by telephone, the manager must report to the location and complete this section immediately River LINE after rendering a decision. The decision of the manager is final and binding on both parties. The manager will direct the Although there are some differences in terminology and employee(s) back to work. practices that reflect the size and structure of the River LINE, its track worker safety program is essentially identical to that of MTA. The complete form, regardless of the type of resolution, is distributed to the appropriate division head, the Office of System Safety, the TWU, and the employee. A Division SAFETY CHALLENGES Review Panel convenes periodically to review the forms. Reports are then provided to the Senior Vice President of Every system included in the study has some form of Subways and the Vice President of System Safety. Figure 25 "Challenge" or "Dispute Resolution" whereby members of provides a copy of the NYCT Safety Rule Dispute Resolu- ROW work crews can document concerns regarding the tion Form.

OCR for page 44
45 FIGURE 25 NYCT Safety Rule Dispute Resolution Form (Courtesy: NYCT). Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority-- complaint of an unsafe condition. An evaluation must be made Good Faith Challenge on how the unsafe condition can be resolved to allow the safe continuance of work. Figure 26 provides a copy of the MBTA If an employee does not have the appropriate PPE or feels ROW Good Faith Safety Challenge form. that the work he or she is performing or being asked to per- form puts him or her and others in danger, that employee is empowered and obligated to rectify this safety concern by River LINE Good Faith Challenge initiating a "Good Faith Safety Challenge" to the employee in charge or to the Control Center dispatcher. River LINE roadway workers have the absolute right to challenge, in good faith, any directive that would violate any The supervisor in charge of the work must respond regulation governing on-track safety. The roadway worker immediately to the "Good Faith Safety Challenge" or to any remains clear of the track until a challenge is resolved.

OCR for page 44
46 FIGURE 26 MBTA ROW Good Faith Safety Challenge form (Courtesy: MBTA). When a roadway worker has concerns about any directive c. Remain clear of the track. that would violate the regulations governing on-track safety d. Explain the reason(s) for their concern on a the following procedures apply: "Roadway Worker Challenge Form" (see Figure 27). e. Give the form to the employee in charge. 1. The roadway worker will discuss the on-track safety 4. The employee in charge will review the challenge form procedures at the work location with the employee in and determine whether: charge. The worker and the employee in charge try to a. The worker's statement of on-track safety procedures clarify any misunderstandings and resolve any differ- at the work location is accurate and the on-track ences of opinion about the on-track safety procedures. safety procedures comply with regulations. 2. If the worker and the employee in charge are unable to b. If the employee in charge determines that the resolve the conflict, the employee may challenge the worker's concerns are valid, the employee in charge on-track safety procedures. To issue a challenge, the changes the procedures so that they comply with worker must: the regulations. If the worker considers the challenge a. Do so in good faith. The worker must have an honest resolved, the employee in charge forwards the chal- concern that the procedures in place do not comply lenge form to the Superintendent of Maintenance's with these on-track safety regulations. (or designee's) office, and the worker returns to b. Be able to explain the concern about the proposed work. on-track safety procedures being applied. c. If the employee in charge determines that the 3. If the worker decides to challenge the on-track safety worker's concerns are not valid, he or she notifies procedures, he or she must: the worker and documents the determination on the a. Notify the employee in charge. form. If the worker considers the challenge to be b. Notify any other roadway workers of the concern. resolved, the employee in charge forwards the

OCR for page 44
47 FIGURE 27 River LINE Roadway Worker Protection Challenge Resolution Form (Courtesy: River LINE). challenge form to the line engineer's (or designee's) The challenge is considered resolved, and the workers office, and the worker returns to work. return to work. d. If the worker still does not consider the challenge 6. A copy of the completed challenge form is forwarded resolved, the employee in charge contacts the super- to the superintendent of maintenance's (or designee's) visor for a resolution. office. e. The supervisor reviews the challenge form and determines whether the proposed on-track safety procedures at the work location comply with the Toronto Transit Commission regulations. The supervisor contacts the employees named on the form to make this determination. The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act gives all 5. If the supervisor determines that the challenge was workers the right to refuse unsafe work. The TTC implementa- valid, the supervisor arranges for the procedures to tion of the employee process to refuse unsafe work is as follows: comply with the regulations. Once the procedures are in compliance, the workers return to work. If the Employee reports concerns to supervisor. supervisor determines that the challenge was not valid, If unresolved, the matter is referred to the joint Labor/ the supervisor explains the decision to the worker. Management Health and Safety Committee.