From: ronda@ais.org (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Help finding Lawyer for Osha Case
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: UMCC
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:09:44 GMT

[ Article crossposted from misc.legal,soc.culture.usa ]
[ Author was Ronda Hauben ]
[ Posted on Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:33:05 GMT ]

Does anyone have any advice about finding a lawyer for
an Osha case? I have prevailed at the local level and 
at the Circuit Court review. The case is a case under
the Michigan Occupational Health and Safety Law.
I filed it in 1988 against Mazda.

Mazda has been used by Ford to produce Ford cars and to
basically lower standards in the U.S. auto industry.
Mazda has challenged every case that workers have 
brought against it in an effort to make life very
difficult for anyone who tries to have their rights
upheld.

There have been articles in Automotive News on Feb. 13, 1989
and December 9, 1991 documenting this policy of Mazda.

Now Ford has taken over Mazda openly, but given it a 
new name -- AutoAlliance -- in an effort to disassociate
the anti labor practices at Mazda and the name on
the cars that are produced under these substandard
conditions - the cars still bear the name of either
the Ford Probe or the Mazda (i.e. no car is called
AutoAlliance)

Thus this case is part of Ford's strategy of lowering 
the labor standards by using other entities to set
patterns that it might get bad publicity if it were
openly involved in this activity under its own name.

The State labor dept. refused to allow me to have
a liability determination when the original decision
was rendered. Now the Michigan Court of Appeals has
denied jurisdiction over the case until a liability 
determination is made. Thus I am being penalized for
the fact tht the State of Michigan and Mazda refused to
abide by the obligations of determining liability before
Mazda was allowed to appeal the case. And they have 
been rewarded for their disdain of their obligations by
the Michgian Court of Appeals. 

The UAW International Union refuses to be helpful in any
way in supporting the case -- despite the fact that there
has been a clear decision stating that Mazda discriminated
in violation of MIOSHA. Instead the International Union by
its lack of support for the decision is encouraging Mazda
and Ford to continue to lower safety standards in the auto
industry.

In the past I have found that both Ford and the UAW have a 
great deal of political clout in Michigan and thus lawyers
are reluctant to take on cases where these powerful entities
with large bank accounts are involved.

Also, I have had to look for a lawyer who will take the case on
a contingency and that has been difficult as I am not
able to help a lawyer finance a fight - and thus I find that
the lawyers I find are forced to be conservative in fighting
these powerful and well financed entities.

One of the precedent case under MIOSHA led to the person who
was courageous enough to bring the case to lose her house
and she ended up in jail as a result of trying to stop
a sheriff's deputy from evicting her.

And workers in Michigan have been injured or killed because
of dangerous situations.

This case was filed in August 1988. This is 1992. 
A decision in the case issued in August 1991. Yet there has
been no obligation on Mazda (now Ford) to do anything but
file a couple of court papers here and there. Thus it is 
clear that MIOSHA has no teeth in Michigan.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has no regard for the inmjuries that workers
in Michigan are suffering because of its effort to coddle a big
corporation like Mazda rather than letting the corporation know that 
they have obigations under the Michigan Occupational Health and 
Safety Act. 

The original order by the Administrative Law Judge at the 
Michigan Dept of Labor issued August 21, 1991 said

Determination No. D-88-087-2 is rescinded. Respondent (Mazda) is
ordered to offer reinstatement to Complainant Hauben to a probationary
position; pay back wages and fringe benefits, less wages earned and 
unemployment compensation benefits received; expunge any and 
all reference to Compainant discharge from her record: provide adequate
training prior to assigning her to the assembly line; and observe
all medical restrictions that may still remain from her injury.

The Department is directed to confer with the parties to determine
the amount of liability and provide a copy of its determination
to me. If the parties are unable to informally resolve the liability
quesiton, either party may request a hearing. Appeal Docket MI-DI 90-960-
is closed.

At the time the Department of Labor refused to follow the directive
of the Administrative Law Judge and instead Mazda had no obligations
for any enforcement of the decision. 

An article in Automotive News on Dec. 9, 1991 quoted union officials
saying that workers have given up filing complaints against Mazda
because the workers are then left with no income while Mazda
fights any case to the limit.

The case of Pearl Brown at the Michigan Court of Appeals shows that
she set a precedent for there to be health and safety training and
standards, but she went to jail because she was made to continue 
to suffer while the case went through its appeals. Also, workers
in Michigan are kept ignorant of her case and even when they 
eventually try to cite the precedent - the case takes years
and the employer has no obligations through the time.

Justice so delayed is no justice - and the whole way the state
of Michigan deals with these cases makes it clear that workers
in Michigan have no real rights despite the legal precedents
and laws which seem to give the appearance of the contrary.

Precedent cases under Osha say that any individual worker who
brings a case under Osha starts the machinery which is supposed 
to benefit other workers. Instead that worker is made to suffer
while the employer involved is encouraged to ignore any 
unfavorable decision as the Courts don't allow enforcement
of their own decisions when a big and powerful corporate
entity is involved.

Following is the statement of the Michigan Court of Appeals
on the case:

The Court, pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(1), orders that the claim of 
appeal, (Mazda's), filed March 24, 1992, is DISMISSED for 
lack of jurisdiction because the March 3, 1992, order was not
a final order appealable by right. In light of the motion to
remand, it is now clear that the March 3, 1992, order was not a final
order because it did not determine the amount of damages owed to Ronda
Hauben. This dismissal is without prejudice to filing another
claim of appeal once the Department ofLabor has determined the 
amount of damages and the circuit court has reviewed that 
determination.

The Court further orders that the motion to remand is 
DENIED as moot.

The order was entered into the Michigan Court of Appeals Oct. 14, 1992.

The State of Michigan now says that it will agree to a stipulation
to determine liablity - but its not clear that Mazda would agree -
and the refusal of both the State of Michigan and of Mazda to 
have determined liability before the case was allowed to be
appealed (as the Adminstrative Code actually provides for) has
led to the order of the Administrative Law judge being treated
as a joke by the Michigan Court of Appeals and by the employer.

Workers in Michigan continue to suffer and even when one goes
through the hard fight to bring a case, and even to get a 
favorable decision and order, it has no effect on the employer.
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive