Opinion
No. 35018
Decided March 20, 1957.
Public Utilities Commission — Powers — Promulgation and enforcement of orders for protection of railway employees — Finding that substandard sanitary conditions exist, and order to remedy — Appeal — Finding not disturbed, when.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
A committee of the transportation brotherhoods filed with the appellee, Public Utilities Commission, a complaint against the appellant, the Southern Railway System, as to the alleged unsanitary conditions maintained by the appellant at the north end of the Gest Street classification yards at Cincinnati. It is alleged in the complaint that there are no drinking or toilet facilities or facilities for washing hands in the yards away from the main office building.
An answer was filed in which it is alleged that the complaint is in error in stating that there are no drinking or toilet facilities in the yards away from the main office building. It is alleged further that on the first floor of the yard office building there are toilet facilities, wash basins and a drinking fountain; that a short distance to the north and west of the yard office building there is a switchmen's wash and locker room; that in such building there are toilet facilities, showers, wash basins and a drinking fountain, in addition to lockers, tables and benches; that there have been no toilet facilities or drinking water at the north end of the yard due to the fact that there is no city water or sewer available there; that it is impracticable to construct facilities at any other place in the yard than where those now existing are located; that construction at the north end would be uneconomical; and that the complaint is unreasonable and the demand made is not necessary.
A hearing was had before an attorney examiner of the commission, at which testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of both parties. The examiner found that the working conditions are so substandard and inadequate as to unreasonably interfere with the employees' ability to perform the work assigned to them, and that the appellant should be ordered to construct and equip the north end of the yard with a facility providing a modern toilet, drinking and wash water, a table and seating accommodations. The examiner recommended that the parties jointly submit to the commission evidence of mutual agreement as to the exact location of the facility, and that appellant prepare plans and specifications for the toilet and wash-room facility.
The commission adopted the examiner's summary of the case, discussion and finding of fact and ordered appellant to submit plans and specifications and to proceed with the construction of the facility at an agreed location.
An appeal from the order of the commission brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. James G. Headley, for appellant.
Mr. William Saxbe, attorney general, Mr. Paul Tague, Jr., and Mr. Ralph N. Mahaffey, for appellee.
Appellant contends that the order is contrary to the weight of the evidence, is not supported by sufficient evidence and is not based on any finding of fact, and that the order is unreasonable and unlawful because its indefinite and incomplete requirements afford appellant no standard for compliance.
The Public Utilities Commission has plenary power under Section 4905.04, Revised Code, to promulgate and enforce orders relating to the protection, welfare and safety of railroad employees. New York Central Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 130 Ohio St. 548, 200 N.E. 759; Baltimore Ohio Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 156 Ohio St. 282, 102 N.E.2d 246.
In considering cases such as the instant one, in which there is conflicting testimony, this court will not substitute its opinion or judgment for that of the commission on questions of fact, and an order of the commission will not be reversed unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Baltimore Ohio Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, supra. From an examination of the record this court is of the opinion that the order of the commission is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Appellant's contention with respect to the order being unreasonable and unlawful because its indefinite and incomplete requirements afford no standard for compliance is refuted by an examination of the order. The controlling issue is the need for sanitary facilities for the northern portion of the yard, and the commission, in its order, directed appellant to "prepare plans and specifications for the toilet and washroom facility in line with finding (3) of the attorney examiner and reiterated by this commission." It is then ordered that a copy of such plans and specifications be filed with an estimate of time required to complete the facility and with evidence of mutual agreement as to the exact location of the facility.
This court is of the opinion that the order of the commission is not unreasonable or unlawful, and it is, therefore, affirmed.
Order affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HERBERT, JJ., concur.