|
| |
| 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. |

|