Opinion ID: 4554815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Morris’s Employment and Termination from BNSF

Text: Ron Morris started working at BNSF as a conductor in 2004. In 2011 he began operating trains traveling between Savanna and Aurora, Illinois. During a shift one day in March 2013, a data recorder showed that Morris’s train—a so-called “key train” carrying hazardous chemicals—had twice exceeded speed limits by 10 and 12 miles per hour. Morris failed to follow company rules requiring self-reporting of the violations. An investigation ensued and was sure to result in Morris being disciplined. Morris’s discipline would come after one of two processes ran their course. It is easiest to think of them as either informal or formal. In the formal process, BNSF labor relations and management gather information about the employee’s safety infractions and conduct a hearing. The hearing oﬃcer recommends what discipline, if any, to impose after considering the facts and a written policy categorizing violations by their level of seriousness. If the hearing oﬃcer and the employee’s supervisor recommend termination, the company’s Review Board assesses the evidence and makes the ﬁnal decision. Nos. 19-2808 & 19-2913 3 BNSF allows employees like Morris to seek permission to travel one of two informal disciplinary paths. First, an employee who is oﬀered “waiver” can admit the alleged misconduct, forgo a formal investigation, and agree to accept the recommended sanction—all with the hope of receiving a lesser degree of discipline than would have emerged at the end of a more formal and resource-intensive process. The company’s policies also include an informal pathway called “alternative handling.” As its name implies, this avenue aﬀords an alternative to BNSF’s formal investigative processes and allows the matter to be handled at lower levels. By way of a rough analogy, think of alternative handling as a way for line supervisors to handle the matter themselves—perhaps with some strong words of warning and a promise of no such leniency in the future—without sending the oﬀending employee to the plant manager or corporate oﬃce for a determination of the sanction. Any discipline, warnings, or corrective actions that result from alternative handling do not appear on the employee’s permanent record. It is easy to see why an employee would prefer the informal process to the formal investigation: it is the same reason why a student caught violating a school rule will often prefer that his teacher handle the matter in the classroom instead of sending him to the principal’s oﬃce. Morris came to the same view and sought to have his two speeding infractions addressed through alternative handling or waiver. He thought he had a good chance of resolving the matter that way because other employees had done just that— and managed to keep their jobs—after committing similar safety violations. The parties tangle over whether Morris properly submitted his waiver request. What matters for these 4 Nos. 19-2808 & 19-2913 purposes, though, is that ultimately Scott Hendrickson, the Superintendent of Operations for BNSF’s Chicago division, rejected Morris’s request for alternative handling and made no mention of waiver. Hendrickson’s reasons for denying alternative handling shifted over time and began with the explanation that Morris was ineligible because he violated “Critical Work Practices,” a term Morris had never heard of or seen in any workplace policy manual. During litigation the company oﬀered a new reason, suggesting that it disallowed Morris’s access to the informal pathways because he was operating a key train with hazardous chemicals. Morris found the inconsistencies concerning and thought they might mask the real reason why Hendrickson insisted on pressing the matter to a formal investigation and discipline. Eventually Morris found himself in a formal disciplinary hearing along with the engineer who worked the same shift during which the two speeding violations occurred. The hearing oﬃcer recommended terminating the engineer and suspending Morris for 30 days. Hendrickson forwarded the recommendation to the Review Board. Andrea Smith, BNSF’s Director of Labor Relations and a member of the Review Board, responded by supporting the dismissal of both employees. In April 2013 Morris received a letter terminating his employment. He challenged the termination within the company and then through union arbitration. When those eﬀorts proved unsuccessful, Morris decided to head to court.