Fired for losing his nerve. A cool million oughta help

[CPOPE]

PG&E worker wins $1 million in Santa Cruz wrongful termination lawsuit
By Stephen Baxter, Santa Cruz Sentinel,

Posted: 12/16/2013 10:02:18 AM PST | Updated: about 9 hours ago

SANTA CRUZ -- A 44-year-old former PG&E power line worker was awarded more than $1 million in a recent civil lawsuit after he made safety complaints and was fired in 2012.

Matthew Niswonger, of Live Oak, worked for PG&E for about eight years. His crew was asked to replace a broken electrical pole on Hihn Road in Ben Lomond in July 2011.

His supervisor said the repair could be done without shutting down power, so Niswonger and two others did it -- but it was harrowing work. A cross arm broke as they were working, and live, high-voltage wires came "within inches" of touching each other, Niswonger said.

"If those two wires would have touched, there would have been an explosion," he said.

Luckily, they completed the job and no one was hurt.

Afterward, they found out that at least one other PG&E crew turned down the job because it appeared dangerous with live wires.

About a month later, another crew did more work on the line -- but they got clearance from supervisors to have the power line shut off for about 100 customers on Hihn Road during the job.

"In the company's defense, they're just trying to give good customer service. They're trying to keep people's power on," Niswonger said. "It's a balance of what jobs need to be done 'hot' and what jobs need to be done de-energized. That's a judgment call."

Niswonger made a safety complaint and essentially felt unsafe at work after that, said his San Francisco-based attorney, Jonathan Siegel.

Niswonger suffered from panic attacks, anxiety and depression. He was granted a monthlong medical absence, but his supervisor asked him to show up to work to talk about the absence, according to the original legal complaint. Niswonger called to say he would not return to work, and he and his supervisor exchanged voicemails about it that week.

Niswonger's supervisor fired him in a voicemail in September 2011.

Niswonger filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in June 2012, and his attorney said it took that long to file because Niswonger was searching for an attorney.

He essentially sued for lost wages, lost benefits and emotional distress. Santa Cruz County Superior Judge John Gallagher heard the case in a jury trial from Nov. 4 to 27. Niswonger's attorney essentially had to prove that he made a safety complaint in good faith, and that a substantial part of his termination was part of that safety complaint.

The jury awarded Niswonger $595,615 for lost wages and benefits and $500,000 for emotional distress. PG&E also was ordered to pay for Niswonger's legal fees.

Monica Tell, a spokeswoman for PG&E, said Friday that the utility's lawyers planned to continue the case.

"The case is not over," Tell said. "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and plan to file a number of post-trial motions. Until then it is not appropriate to comment further."

Niswonger, a father of three, has since found a new job in the same field. He thanked his wife and children for standing by him during the lawsuit.

Niswonger added that safety is a daily discussion at PG&E, and line workers in Santa Cruz County do safe and efficient work.

"If there is an issue at PG&E, it's at a management level," he said.

[Old Line Dog]

PG&E worker wins $1 million in Santa Cruz wrongful termination lawsuit
By Stephen Baxter, Santa Cruz Sentinel,

Posted: 12/16/2013 10:02:18 AM PST | Updated: about 9 hours ago

SANTA CRUZ -- A 44-year-old former PG&E power line worker was awarded more than $1 million in a recent civil lawsuit after he made safety complaints and was fired in 2012.

Matthew Niswonger, of Live Oak, worked for PG&E for about eight years. His crew was asked to replace a broken electrical pole on Hihn Road in Ben Lomond in July 2011.

His supervisor said the repair could be done without shutting down power, so Niswonger and two others did it -- but it was harrowing work. A cross arm broke as they were working, and live, high-voltage wires came "within inches" of touching each other, Niswonger said.

"If those two wires would have touched, there would have been an explosion," he said.

Luckily, they completed the job and no one was hurt.

Afterward, they found out that at least one other PG&E crew turned down the job because it appeared dangerous with live wires.

About a month later, another crew did more work on the line -- but they got clearance from supervisors to have the power line shut off for about 100 customers on Hihn Road during the job.

"In the company's defense, they're just trying to give good customer service. They're trying to keep people's power on," Niswonger said. "It's a balance of what jobs need to be done 'hot' and what jobs need to be done de-energized. That's a judgment call."

Niswonger made a safety complaint and essentially felt unsafe at work after that, said his San Francisco-based attorney, Jonathan Siegel.

Niswonger suffered from panic attacks, anxiety and depression. He was granted a monthlong medical absence, but his supervisor asked him to show up to work to talk about the absence, according to the original legal complaint. Niswonger called to say he would not return to work, and he and his supervisor exchanged voicemails about it that week.

Niswonger's supervisor fired him in a voicemail in September 2011.

Niswonger filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in June 2012, and his attorney said it took that long to file because Niswonger was searching for an attorney.

He essentially sued for lost wages, lost benefits and emotional distress. Santa Cruz County Superior Judge John Gallagher heard the case in a jury trial from Nov. 4 to 27. Niswonger's attorney essentially had to prove that he made a safety complaint in good faith, and that a substantial part of his termination was part of that safety complaint.

The jury awarded Niswonger $595,615 for lost wages and benefits and $500,000 for emotional distress. PG&E also was ordered to pay for Niswonger's legal fees.

Monica Tell, a spokeswoman for PG&E, said Friday that the utility's lawyers planned to continue the case.

"The case is not over," Tell said. "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and plan to file a number of post-trial motions. Until then it is not appropriate to comment further."

Niswonger, a father of three, has since found a new job in the same field. He thanked his wife and children for standing by him during the lawsuit.

Niswonger added that safety is a daily discussion at PG&E, and line workers in Santa Cruz County do safe and efficient work.

"If there is an issue at PG&E, it's at a management level," he said.

Just a "Personal Opinion".
CRAP like this is what is wrong with our country.

You agree with that guy Mr. Pope? "Where have all the LINEMEN gone?"

[Rob]

For sure... It would make more sense had he refused to do the job and was terminated. Once he completed the job and no one got hurt seems a bit late to dwell on it. Almost makes me wonder if the guys he worked with (other crews) were the ones giving him a hard time for doing it after the other crew turned it day. Sounds like he's still doing Linework but for a different company.

Like many stories it all depends on who tells it....

[reppy007]

Sounds like he hired a lawyer in advance......and the lawyer coached him all the way through.........apparently with success.

[Trouble1]

At least the company got tagged for not listening to the workers. A supervisor does not have the final say on whether something is safe or not unless he's doing the work. The fact that he probably new it was already refused once before and then didn't give the next crew that information is what probably set the whole thing off after the crew found out that info. I've had it happen plenty of times where I refused something and then it was magically done a couple days later and I'm sure I've been on the other end.

Whether the guy deserved to sue and win shouldn't be the discussion that comes from the story.

[reppy007]

There was one time I sorta refused,there happened to be a bad transformer on a closed delta-bank,they wanted to change it out and while on the pole in hooks you could maneuver to the right and to the left,well the pole itself was twisting really bad...pretty much rotten.....this bank fed several homes ,maybe 5 or six,but one was actually 3-phase,so what do you do? Anybody should know that.....I think!:D

[Lineman North Florida]

There was one time I sorta refused,there happened to be a bad transformer on a closed delta-bank,they wanted to change it out and while on the pole in hooks you could maneuver to the right and to the left,well the pole itself was twisting really bad...pretty much rotten.....this bank fed several homes ,maybe 5 or six,but one was actually 3-phase,so what do you do? Anybody should know that.....I think!:D

Make it an open delta................:D

[reppy007]

Make it an open delta................:D

1000% correct!

[NJ glove]

Without knowing all the facts I really can't say much about the employee refusing to do the work. I would say is that if the pole is not down on the ground and wire is up then it should be done energized. Not many can do what we do and I would never ask someone to do something that can't be done. What I do see is some lineman are kittens and have slipped through the cracks. Be a man , Be Safe, and make it happen. Big difference between being unsafe and hazardous. Just my opinion.

[Orgnizdlbr]

On the face of it, there's something awfully wrong with the info written in the article. $595.000 for lost wages when he was let go September 2011. The case is heard November 2013, a little over 2 years, lost wages are only what you would have earned in a court of law, so the article is telling me he was making almost $300.000 a year...... I don't think so!!!

He doesn't file a wrongful termination law suit until June, 2012. PG$E is a union shop with a grievance and arbitration provision in the CBA. So did he file a grievance for unjust discipline? I would certainly think so, and if he didn't, I would be certain the Local Union filed one on his behalf. So, unless the grievance was withdraw by either him or the local, which BTW, would be highly unlikely if all of the facts in the article are accurate, what was the outcome of that process????

Something ain't right here...... The article doesn't make any sense to me...... Oh, but it is California...... I guess anything is possible!!

[loodvig]

On the face of it, there's something awfully wrong with the info written in the article. $595.000 for lost wages when he was let go September 2011. The case is heard November 2013, a little over 2 years, lost wages are only what you would have earned in a court of law, so the article is telling me he was making almost $300.000 a year...... I don't think so!!!

He doesn't file a wrongful termination law suit until June, 2012. PG$E is a union shop with a grievance and arbitration provision in the CBA. So did he file a grievance for unjust discipline? I would certainly think so, and if he didn't, I would be certain the Local Union filed one on his behalf. So, unless the grievance was withdraw by either him or the local, which BTW, would be highly unlikely if all of the facts in the article are accurate, what was the outcome of that process????

Something ain't right here...... The article doesn't make any sense to me...... Oh, but it is California...... I guess anything is possible!!

I agree there has to more to this story!

[reppy007]

Maybe some of those so called lost wages are part of what he owes the lawyer.........hell if I know.:o

[Orgnizdlbr]

Maybe some of those so called lost wages are part of what he owes the lawyer.........hell if I know.:o


Well, that wouldn't, be called "lost wages" in an award Rep. Yes, part of the TOTAL AWARD but separate from lost wages and compensatory damages. The company was ordered to pay attorney's fees, that ain't part of his damages, just more the company had To pony up........

[reppy007]

Would it be safe to ask .........what would First Energy do? :D

[Orgnizdlbr]

Would it be safe to ask .........what would First Energy do? :D

Lmao!!!!!!

[T-Man]

On the face of it, there's something awfully wrong with the info written in the article. $595.000 for lost wages when he was let go September 2011. The case is heard November 2013, a little over 2 years, lost wages are only what you would have earned in a court of law, so the article is telling me he was making almost $300.000 a year...... I don't think so!!!

He doesn't file a wrongful termination law suit until June, 2012. PG$E is a union shop with a grievance and arbitration provision in the CBA. So did he file a grievance for unjust discipline? I would certainly think so, and if he didn't, I would be certain the Local Union filed one on his behalf. So, unless the grievance was withdraw by either him or the local, which BTW, would be highly unlikely if all of the facts in the article are accurate, what was the outcome of that process????

Something ain't right here...... The article doesn't make any sense to me...... Oh, but it is California...... I guess anything is possible!!

I feel the same way, it's not as much about the job being unsafe as the guy decided to not come to work because of ill feelings about the work so to speak. Like Org said there has to be more to it and the Union would have more to say about how it was handled. I'm suspicious :confused:

[Trouble1]

Well I don't know about how much overtime they get where he was, but I bet they factored in the max he could make whether he liked overtime or not plus benefits. It's not uncommon for guys to get close to the 200k mark in pay. I never have, but I've seen it. Factor in insurance which is a form of payment and he may be close to 250k. I'm sure they had to pay interest as well. I'll bet his lawyer found the highest paid guy in the line department and added benefits plus interest. 300k isn't that far off.

I still don't like the fact that the first crew refused and then they had another crew do it despite their concerns. Sounds like the right thing was done by the guy in the first place, then it turned into a pissing/grudge match that got out of hand. I'm sure we'll never know.

A supervisor has to be out of his mind to force someone to do something that they think is unsafe whether they think the worker is being a dead beat or not. Just think of the liability if someone gets hurt. Really what are you saving by keeping the lights on for a little longer. I'm sure they could have taken a quick outage and made things safe, then went to work. Rarely does a job come along that the whole job needs to be done dead. Most of the time you can take ten minutes to tie in some phases that might have fell on top of each other for example, turn it back on, and then go about setting the pole with it hot.

[Orgnizdlbr]

Trouble1, I agree that a short outage could have been taken and then the bulk of the work done hot, happens all the time.

on the lost wage portion of the damages, his attorney would have had to prove that he worked those type of hours that would have resulted in him earning that kind of money over time, not just once either. An award of that magnitude isn't given willy nilly because the highest paid guy earned that kind of money. As I said earlier, it's California and I suppose anything can happen. I just ain't buying it.....


The other thing that bothers me is that his statement about the arm breaking and the wire coming close to hitting each other got him so fraidy scared that he couldn't go to work.

now he's doing line work for another company?????

It ain't often you'll hear me question another lineman on this site, but there's something awful fishy about this story

[reppy007]

Theres been a few times when I could have ****ted in my drawers due to large elecrical fires,loud fuses blowing and all that goes with being a lineman.I could of hired a lawyer and claimed losses due to the **** filled pants and underware that I lost,then go work somewhere else and do it all again.:D

[rob8210]

I am not going to say much , but it does sound very odd. My point is , were they informed that a crew had refused to do that job live? Around here, the right to refuse unsafe work is cast in stone and you must be informed when asked to do a job, when someone has refused before you, due to being considered unsafe. Around here working a tricky job live is very rare, and most supervisors won't even ask. It happens though and when it does we put our heads together and come up with an acceptable way to get 'er dun! No one should be forced to due a job they are scared to do. Of course experience plays in here too, a less experienced guy may not be capable of doing some jobs that experienced guys can and will do !

[T-Man]

I am not going to say much , but it does sound very odd. My point is , were they informed that a crew had refused to do that job live? Around here, the right to refuse unsafe work is cast in stone and you must be informed when asked to do a job, when someone has refused before you, due to being considered unsafe. Around here working a tricky job live is very rare, and most supervisors won't even ask. It happens though and when it does we put our heads together and come up with an acceptable way to get 'er dun! No one should be forced to due a job they are scared to do. Of course experience plays in here too, a less experienced guy may not be capable of doing some jobs that experienced guys can and will do !

Good post rob. ;)

[scratchpad]

His crew was asked to replace a broken electrical pole on Hihn Road in Ben Lomond in July 2011.

His supervisor said the repair could be done without shutting down power, so Niswonger and two others did it -- but it was harrowing work. A cross arm broke as they were working, and live, high-voltage wires came "within inches" of touching each other, Niswonger said.

Afterward, they found out that at least one other PG&E crew turned down the job because it appeared dangerous with live wires.


"If there is an issue at PG&E, it's at a management level," he said.

The last statement says it best.

How the Fu(k does the supervisor know whether it can be done hot or not? Some of these guys/gals have never done linework. They (PG$E management) want to be the #1 leading utility and want everything done hot. They (management) are to "influence" crews to do more jobs hot and with less people. That's their own words right there.

This story doesnt surprise me. Job shopping is a normal occurence at PG$E. One crew turns a job down because they feel its unsafe or cant be done without breaking PG$E's rules, the job then gets shuffled out to a go to crew.

Why only a three man crew? To save money. PG$E is big business. Safety is not their #1 concern. In every safety accident discussion the first sentence or words out of managements mouth usually go like this. "This Line truck was very expensive, is now totalled out, but we are glad the lineman is okay".

[Orgnizdlbr]

The last statement says it best.

How the Fu(k does the supervisor know whether it can be done hot or not? Some of these guys/gals have never done linework. They (PG$E management) want to be the #1 leading utility and want everything done hot. They (management) are to "influence" crews to do more jobs hot and with less people. That's their own words right there.

This story doesnt surprise me. Job shopping is a normal occurence at PG$E. One crew turns a job down because they feel its unsafe or cant be done without breaking PG$E's rules, the job then gets shuffled out to a go to crew.

Why only a three man crew? To save money. PG$E is big business. Safety is not their #1 concern. In every safety accident discussion the first sentence or words out of managements mouth usually go like this. "This Line truck was very expensive, is now totalled out, but we are glad the lineman is okay".


Scratch, you could be talking about any of the big investor owned utility's. Certainly first energy falls into that line of thinking. We don't have enough people to do normal work, let alone emergency work.......

[Old Line Dog]

I don't think "Fired for loosin his nerve", is really the correct topic line, for what is being discussed here.

I know there is a big difference between Union outfits and Non union outfits.

BUT, a Union outfit should be universal in their refusal to work a job, if a union crew refuses to work it for Safety reasons, as long as the "Safety Reasons" are truly valid.

I have worked as a contractor for Union as well as non union utility's.

Simply put...their boys would NOT do back lot change outs of ANY type of pole, glovin 7.2 KV off the pole.

If their boys couldn't reach it and glove it out of a bucket....It wasen't happening.

Created Jobs for guys like me...and still does.

"Fired for loosin his nerve". What a load of Crap.

As a Contractor, I was sent out on quite a few jobs that were just...riduclous. I'd call my GF and say..."Are you Fcuking kidding me? This job gets an outage....or my crew ain't doin it.

LOTS of different "work practices". Union and Non.

[lewy]

There is no doubt that we give the shidty jobs to the contractors as I am sure most places do. They have to follow the same rules as we do and if we decide a job cannot be done a certain way safely we cannot give the same job to a contractor. This is how we deal with work refusals based on safety.

http://www.worksmartontario.gov.on.ca/scripts/default.asp?contentID=2-4-3#H4

[Old Line Dog]

There is no doubt that we give the shidty jobs to the contractors as I am sure most places do. They have to follow the same rules as we do and if we decide a job cannot be done a certain way safely we cannot give the same job to a contractor. This is how we deal with work refusals based on safety.


Understand Lewy. Understand. I really don't want to get into it, so as not to piss anybody off.

But the bottom line, in the non union utility My contractor last worked for...their boys just WOULDN'T do any Back lot climbing changeouts...even a Fcukin A1 Pole.

I could tell ya stories, ya wouldn't believe.

They really hated it when their company brought in "Real Linemen" to do Real Backlot work...OFF the pole. Imagine that....

Actually climbin a pole...and glovin 7.2 kv. Just friggin AMAZING!!!:D

It's not the sihty" jobs ya farm out Lewy...it's the REAL Linework, you're farmin out to the real Linemen that will do it.

Contractors.

And ya wonder why Corps and Utilities....are goin to contractors...More and More.....

[reppy007]

I love it when utilities say that the contractors have to follow the same rules that they have in place.....from what Ive seen they enforce some and stay away lots of times when they feel like it.....they hold all the cards.They choose when and when not the rules have to be followed :D

[Old Line Dog]

They choose when and when not the rules have to be followed :D

You're right. By their OWN People. That's why Contractors be doin back Lot work in their hood.

It's all a "Game".
"Cush" linemen, and "Workin Linemen".

When the "Cush" Linemen won't work it...ya bring in Contractors.

It's all a "Game"....

[Orgnizdlbr]

Funny, I've done plenty of back lot work, we still do..... We don't have any contractors on the property doing distribution that I know of. Haven't had any since Sandy..... And we'd still have people out of lites if we didn't have them then.

[Old Line Dog]

Funny, I've done plenty of back lot work, we still do..... We don't have any contractors on the property doing distribution that I know of. Haven't had any since Sandy..... And we'd still have people out of lites if we didn't have them then.

Not to upset ya man...really.
But, ya KNOW what I'm talkin about.

[lewy]

We have a few contractor crews that have been working for us for a while and yes Repy they follow the exact same rules as us, here is where both the union and management agree. Do they get most of the dirtier jobs? yes but not all of them. We keep the more technical jobs that require a lot of switching when you have to be changing the feed as the job moves along. The main advantage the contractors have is they don't generally get pulled off jobs as stuff happens.

[reppy007]

Im not going to go into detail....while working for a contractor for the old utility my office was down the hall from the old guys that I used to work with......from the start they caught on that I was leaving early,before the 4.30 I was susposed to leave.....well they went to their and my bosses and told on me.....when asked about this I said yes it is true.....I explained that my work was done,and that there was no need to hang around cause if someone was needed I wouldnt be even considered,that would go to the utility guys.....well it was a true fact,so nothing changed and I kept leaving early,as long as my work was done.