Main About Laser Critic Search Disclaimer FPC What's NEW

 

EXPLOSIVE ACCIDENT

COLONIAL WORKER ALMOST KILLED IN VAN ACCIDENT AND THEN FIRED

Hampton Edward Forbes, a Colonial Mechanical employee, was driving home at the end of his shift on a Colonial project at Valleydale Foods. As he drove along in the Colonial Mechanical van, it began to drizzle. Then a deer bounded in front of him and he stood on the brakes. However, the brakes failed because of the heavy load of Colonial equipment on board, according to his written account. "The van swerved to the right, and I took out 100 feet of embankment, two boulders, and hit an tree," said Forbes, before the van crashed and exploded into flames.

Forbes made it out before the explosion and a passerby took him to the hospital. After the doctors cleaned the glass and sand out of the wound on his forehead, he received 40 stitches to close the gash. He also suffered a dislocated hip and a lacerated knee.

Colonial Mechanical did not seem grateful that he escaped with his life. One week later, they fired Hampton Forbes. Now he is in battle with Colonial Mechanical over his Workers Compensation claim and has hired an attorney for that fight. (File #204-89-64)

The litany of lost workday injuries seems endless for Colonial Mechanical employees. A service technician missed 4 days of work with a back injury. A sheet metal mechanic that suffered strains and contusions suffered through 45 days of restricted work activity. A truck driver with a fractured wrist missed 13 days of work. A service technician with a cervical strain missed 68 days of work. A plumber with a severed tendon in his lacerated hand missed 41 days of work. A service technician who burned his hand and fractured his wrist missed 33 days of work. And so it goes at Colonial Mechanical.

LABOR PROBLEMS
SHORT-SIGHTED LABOR POLICIES

Part of Colonial Mechanical’s problems is their failure to keep a stable, skilled, highly trained labor force on hand. Part of the reason for this problem may be that Colonial Mechanical was charged, in May 2001, with coercing their own employees against even talking to union-affiliated workers, in violation of federal labor law. Colonial Mechanical eventually plea-bargained the violation and was required to post a notice promising not to coerce its employees further. (Case #5-CA-29483)

Colonial Mechanical’s employees are entitled to work non-union. However, if the company is illegally coercing their employees, Colonial Mechanical is not only breaking federal law, but they are denying themselves, and their clients, access to a significant pool of well-trained union workers who have graduated from a stringent apprenticeship program.

COLONIAL CLIENTS WHO WERE NOTIFIED OF POSSIBLE UNION SITE VISITS AND POTENTIAL PICKETING

Sumitomo Machinery Corp. of America

Mary Immaculate Hospital

The Home Shopping Network

Mary Washington Hospital

Fairfax Hospital for Children

Dominion Resources

Centex Construction Co.

Phillip Morris USA

Capital One

 

There are other indications that Colonial Mechanical employees are having trouble making ends meet on Colonial Mechanical’s wages. At least two of Colonial Mechanical’s employees have been sued for garnishment of their wages. The Commonwealth of Virginia sued Joseph B. Reynolds, Jr. for $652, and a January 2001 action was filed by other parties against Reginald Jerome Warren totalling over $1,565. (Case #CL96-1300 & Case #CL01-020)

Another Colonial Mechanical employee, Ed Bracy, had to fight Colonial Mechanical through administrative proceedings in order to collect unemployment. In the words of the State of Virginia’s notification to Bracy in regards to his employment with Colonial Mechanical:

They have not presented documentation to show that your actions constituted misconduct... There was no information to show that you violated any policy... In the absence of evidence to show that you were discharged for misconduct, it is the decision of the Deputy [of the Virginia Employment Division] that you are qualified for [unemployment] benefits.

Although Colonial Mechanical touts its non-union status, this doesn’t mean that they will be free from labor disputes. On occasion, these bitter disputes that could arise from Colonial Mechanical’s unfair labor practices could spill over onto its customers’ job sites.

During the spring of 2001, nine customers of Colonial Mechanical received letters from a labor organization, which provided advance notice that the union would be visiting their place of business to recruit Colonial Mechanical workers as members and also possibly to picket. In other words, labor strife were coming to the work places of Colonial Mechanical’s customers, because of Colonial Mechanical’s contentious labor policies.

Back Critic Up Next