Whistleblower law doesn't apply to fired GM worker

A General Motors assembly plant repairman was fired after reporting concerns with the facility's inspection process, but because his concerns centered on the process, rather than on a vehicle defect, he is not protected by a federal whistleblower law for auto industry employees, a judge in Missouri has ruled.

Richard Barcomb's reports alleging misuse of GM's Global Standard Inspection Process system and misconduct by a co-worker didn't relate to "defects in manufactured motor vehicles," U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. wrote in a Jan. 23 decision dismissing the lawsuit.

The 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act prohibits firing employees of vehicle manufacturers, parts suppliers and dealerships in retaliation for providing information related to defects.

It's the first time a court has examined the scope of whistleblower protection for automotive industry employees, Limbaugh said.

Barcomb was assigned to the final process repair section of GM's Wentzville Assembly Center where he worked on vehicles that came off the line in need of repair "due to errors occurring earlier in the manufacturing process," the decision said. The Missouri plant builds the Chevrolet Colorado, Chevrolet Express, GMC Canyon and GMC Savana, according to its website.

The suit alleges that Barcomb noticed some jobs coming into the final process repair section that needed additional work but that were listed as already fixed in the system.

He then started a "long, escalating process of making his concerns known to management." He also claims to have worried that consumers might end up with defective vehicles because employees were falsifying repair information.

The company fired Barcomb in 2016. A GM spokesman said the automaker terminated him for reasons unrelated to those complaints.

In court, GM argued that the whistleblower protection law applies only to reporting possible defects after manufacturing is complete.

Limbaugh agreed, saying, "Errors presumptively occur quite regularly in an imperfect man-made manufacturing process.

"Hence, GM saw fit to create the 'final process repair' section in the plant which has as its very purpose the goal of fixing these errors before a vehicle goes on the market."

Limbaugh said it would be "counterintuitive" to classify those errors as defects. And beyond the specific wording of the law, he said, it "is also difficult to surmise how, as a matter of common sense, a vehicle could be deemed legally 'defective' prior to its completion."

Barcomb reported dishonest behavior by another employee, Limbaugh said, not an unacknowledged defect in a vehicle.

Barcomb's lawyers didn't respond to messages from Automotive News.