MAY 1996 · VOLUME 17 · NUMBER 5
B E H I N D T H E L I N E S
MAY 1996 · VOLUME 17 · NUMBER 5
B E H I N D T H E L I N E S
THE U.S. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules voted in mid-April not to pursue proposed changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) that would have drastically increased secrecy in the U.S. courts [see "Dirty Secrets," Multinational Monitor, March 1996].
The proposed changes in the judicial rule-making body were aimed at allowing judges to enter secrecy orders "on stipulation of the parties, even if there was no "good cause" for secrecy. The changes were strongly opposed by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a Washington-based civil justice advocacy group, and a wide-ranging coalition of public interest groups, Congressional leaders and media organizations.
"This is an enormous victory for the public interest," says TLPJ Attorney Leslie Brueckner. "The proposed changes would have made secrecy in the federal courts routine, concealing threats to the public health and safety."
The Advisory Committee first proposed the rule changes in the fall of 1994 without public notice, even though the Judicial Conference's procedures require that all non-technical proposals be subject to a six-month public comment period. TLPJ discovered the proposal a few days before the Conference's vote, and immediately organized a campaign to defeat the proposal. In an unprecedented action, on March 14, 1995, the Conference rejected the changes, despite its committee's unanimous endorsement of them.
A year later, the Committee again endorsed the proposed changes, but this time issued them for public notice and comment. TLPJ organized an extensive coalition to defeat the secrecy changes, arguing they would enable corporations to prevent public exposure of product defects and other embarrassing information.
Since the proposed changes have not been formally rejected, there is a possibility that the Committee could consider them again. But Brueckner believes that "for all practical purposes, they are now dead in the water."
Another Cat Lockout
CATERPILLAR INC. DEFIED A FEDERAL WARRANT twice in mid-April by preventing two medical scientists from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) from investigating alleged unsafe and hazardous working conditions at a part-making factory in York, Pennsylvania.
In early May, a federal judge found the company in civil contempt of court, and warned that further attempts to block inspection could lead to $10,000-a-day fines. Facing the judge's threat, Caterpillar agreed to allow the inspections.
The NIOSH researchers are seeking to investigate whether substances such as cadmium were causing health problems for Caterpillar workers, a contention first made by the United Auto Workers union, which represents workers in the plant.
"We have a legal right to do this, but it almost never ends up in legal confrontation," says Dr. Linda Rosenstock, director of NIOSH. Rosenstock says her agency conducts about 400 inspections a year; the last time a company failed to comply with a warrant was 15 years ago, she says.
Prior to capitulating to the judge's order, Caterpillar said in a statement that it wanted NIOSH to demonstrate it had "probable cause to conduct an inspection."
The UAW alleges gross violations of labor laws by Caterpillar and claims that several workers who work around toxic chemicals and metals in the oil cooler department have reported health problems. The union termed Caterpillar's action "part of a callous and repeated pattern of roadblocks that the company has repeatedly set up to frustrate workers' rights."
Mitey Pesticide Dispute
THE UNIROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY agreed in April to cancel several uses of propargite, a cancer-causing pesticide which is used on crops to kill mites.
In an agreement reached with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Connecticut-based chemical company announced that it would stop selling propargite products labeled for use on apricots, apples, peaches, pears, plums, figs, cranberries, strawberries, green beans and lima beans after April 26. The agreement allows the company to continue the production and sale of propargite for use on nearly 30 other crops, including grapes, nectarines, watermelon, potatoes, cotton and roses, however.
Environmental groups criticized the agreement, calling for a ban on the use of propargite on all crops. In a petition filed with the EPA in April, the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) described the EPA's action as "falling short of responsible protection of human health."
"We have used EPA's own dietary risk estimates to show that the agency is improperly manipulating its own "negligible risk" policy in allowing so many propargite uses to continue," says Fern Shepard, an attorney with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, which is representing NCAMP.
NCAMP says there are various chemical alternatives available for propargite that cost the same or less, as well as alternative pest management practices, such as the use of biological controls (including the introduction of natural predators, such as lady bugs, lacewings and predatory mites), that could replace toxic chemical approaches altogether.
-- Haider Rizvi