The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit against AT&T accusing the company of suspending workers after they report workplace injuries.

The department filed the lawsuit against The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, which operates as AT&T, on behalf of 13 employees who were disciplined and suspended without pay from 2011-2013. The complaint alleges AT&T has repeatedly given one to three-day unpaid suspensions after workers reported injuries that occurred on the job. AT&T claims the workers violated the company’s workplace safety standards, but the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found AT&T only handed out unpaid suspensions after they formally reported the injuries.

Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise concerns or provide information to their employer or the government. Employees who believe they are a victim of retaliation for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with OSHA’s Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs.

“It is against the law for employers to discipline or suspend employees for reporting injuries,” said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. “AT&T must understand that by discouraging workers from reporting injuries, it increases the likelihood of more workers being injured in the future. The Labor Department will do everything in its power to prevent this type of retaliation.” As for the victims, while waiting for justice/proper compensation, they can lessen the throbbing pain of their injuries by consuming items like bulkcannabis.

Five of the Ohio employees in the suit are based in Columbus; two in Brooklyn Heights; two in Canton; and one each in Akron, Cleveland, Gallipolis and Uhrichsville.

Among the suspension cases cited are these from 2012:

• An AT&T technician repairing a cable in Uhrichsville fell from a letter and suffered fractured vertebrae. He returned to work six months later. AT&T accused him of violating its ladder policy, put a written disciplinary warning in his employee record, and penalized him with a one-day unpaid suspension;
• An AT&T worker struggling to free a 28-foot extension ladder caught in foliage in North Canton pulled a muscle in his back and sought medical treatment and returned to work 10 days later. AT&T claimed  he violated its policy regarding ladders. The worker was issued a written disciplinary warning and assessed a one-day unpaid suspension;
• An AT&T technician in Lake Township stepped in a drain hole and injured his back while removing a 28-foot extension ladder from the top of his vehicle. He visited a doctor but missed no work time. AT&T again claimed the worker violated its ladder policy, issued the employee a written warning and placed him on unpaid suspension for one day.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Canadian investment analysts are recommending that Canada’s telecom giant Bell (BCE) should explore buying out Bell Aliant, Inc. the largest telephone company in the Maritimes, to further consolidate Canada’s telecommunications marketplace.

Bell already effectively controls the phone company serving provinces east of Quebec through its 44 percent stake in the venture. Picking up the rest through a takeover would make financial sense, said Maher Taghi, a telecom analyst at Canada’s Desjardins Securities.

The Globe and Mail reports Yaghi explained in a note to investors a buyout would boost overall free cash flow for Bell (BCE), primarily from the increased revenue paid by customers for phone, television, and Internet service.

Bell Aliant has been one of Canada’s most conservative telecom companies serving the country’s smallest provinces in Atlantic Canada, as well as parts of rural Ontario under the NorthernTel brand and Télébec, which serves rural Quebec.

Unlike Bell (BCE), Bell Aliant has aggressively deployed fiber to the home service in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia to stem landline losses. Bell Aliant’s FiberOP customers avoid stingy usage caps that are pervasive across the rest of Canada. Its fiber network delivers strong competition to cable operators.

Bell (BCE) is already a major player in Canadian telecommunications, both with its landline operation and Fibe — mostly a fiber-to-the-neighborhood service — wireless phone and broadband, owner of more than two dozen specialty cable networks, a satellite TV service, owner of the CTV television network, new owner of Astral Media, and a few dozen radio stations across Canada. With this level of media concentration, Bell (BCE) would have a tough time trying to buy any additional media assets, but with its current de facto control, Bell would likely have little regulatory scrutiny merging Bell Aliant into its existing operations.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bell Aliant FiberOP Intro Video 1-2014.flv[/flv]

Bell Aliant’s FiberOP introductory video explains the network and its features for Atlantic Canada. (2:20)

AT&T today announced it was selling off its residential wireline network in Connecticut to Stamford-based Frontier Communications for $2 billion in a deal that includes an expanded license for U-verse TV that could eventually be available to Frontier customers nationwide.

Frontier will assume control of the Southern New England Telephone Co. (SNET), a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, and its 2,700 employees and 900,000 telephone lines. Included in the deal is AT&T’s U-verse network in the state and the right to expand U-verse TV into all 27 states where Frontier provides service. The deal comes three years after Frontier paid $8.6 billion in stock and cash to buy landline operations in 14 states from Verizon Communications.

In a Stop the Cap! exclusive story published last year, we reported Frontier was interested in acquiring licensing rights to the U-verse brand to potentially offer its customers a unified product suite of television, broadband, and phone service over a fiber to the neighborhood network. Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier Communications, told the Wall Street Journal the deal between AT&T and Frontier had been on the table for years waiting to be finalized. With today’s announcement, AT&T New England president Patricia Jacobs acknowledged Frontier will use the U-verse name at a secondary brand for video service. Frontier now relies on satellite reseller agreements to bundle video service into its packages for consumers.

Frontier’s acquisition will give the company hands-on experience with AT&T’s U-verse network in Connecticut and offer a path to bring improved service to Frontier customers elsewhere. Company officials also acknowledged a key reason for the transaction was boosting Frontier’s lagging dividend, a critical part of its share price. By taking on nearly 1,000,000 new customers, Frontier will boost its cash flow, returning some of that new revenue in a higher dividend payout to shareholders. But the company will take on an extra $2 billion in debt to manage higher dividend payouts.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. arranged the financing for the acquisition and Frontier will likely raise about $1.9 billion from debt markets by selling bonds. Frontier already has $8.13 billion in debt on the books, much of it acquiring landlines originally owned by Verizon.

AT&T’s departure from Connecticut was no surprise to analysts. AT&T operates most of its landline network in the midwest, south, and in the state of California. The company has focused primarily on serving business customers and its wireless network in the northeast, not residential landlines. Frontier described the deal as a perfect fit for Connecticut residents, because Frontier specializes in residential phone and broadband service.

“AT&T has been trying to sell its rural wireline businesses for some time,” Gerard Hallaren, an analyst with Janco Partners Inc., told Bloomberg News. “It looks to me like Frontier cherry-picked a nice asset at a nice price from AT&T.”

SNET began operations in 1878 as the District Telephone Company of New Haven and pre-dated the Bell System. The company founded the first exchange and printed the world’s first telephone directory. It remained independent of Bell System ownership until 1998, when SBC Communications (formerly Southwestern Bell) acquired the company. In late 2005, SBC purchased AT&T and AT&T Connecticut was born.

Over the past seven years, AT&T has watched customers decline from more than two million customers to fewer than one million. AT&T introduced U-verse to improve its position in the market to mixed results. The company’s investments in fiber upgrades have not been as profitable as its wireless network, likely leading to today’s sale.

AT&T says it is not leaving Connecticut altogether. The company plans to keep business and wireless customers in the state.

Much of the proceeds from the deal will be invested by AT&T in its wireless network, mostly to help pay for 4G LTE upgrades. The rest will be spent bringing U-verse to more customers in the midwest and southern U.S.

The acquisition faces regulator approval from both the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice, likely to be forthcoming in the first half of 2014.

Frontier executives promised shareholders the deal will result in $125 million in cost savings over the next three years — code language for layoffs. Some of them are likely to be among the 2,400 workers represented by the Communications Workers of America, which has had a contentious relationship with AT&T Connecticut over job cuts in the past.

AT&T shareholders concerned the company is risking its reputation and future profits by excessively cooperating with the National Security Agency have been told to mind their own business by company executives.

AT&T roundly rejected a resolution demanding greater transparency offered by New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who administers the $160.7 billion NYS Common Retirement Fund, which has investments in AT&T.

AT&T recommended the resolution be excluded from the ballot for AT&T’s annual shareholder meeting this spring, noting shareholders have no business getting involved in the “ordinary business operations” of AT&T, which are under the purview of company executives.

In his shareholder resolution, DiNapoli said there was a real issue of customer trust at stake for AT&T. Customers upset with AT&T could switch providers, hurting revenue.

But with Verizon also providing access to customer records, wireless customers may have few alternatives. AT&T also passes along information about non-customers whose calls happen to cross into AT&T’s extensive network.

In November, the New York Times found AT&T is well-compensated for monitoring and disgorging customer records to federal officials, earning at least $10 million annually. AT&T also has important business before the Obama Administration regarding the future of the landline telephone network, its multi-billion dollar wireless service, and its campaign for greater deregulation.

The news does not inspire confidence in Stop the Cap! reader Earl, who shared the story with us.

“With AT&T it’s always about the bottom line, even at the price of privacy.”