Ok...here's another BAD company to driver for....WAYLON TRANSPORT (part of ATS)

Well, isn't it interesting how much can change in a month, eh? First off, I'd like to start out by saying thank you to EVERYONE who commented on here, in favour of my comments, or against- I'm happy to see them all. So, having read all of the posts here, I'd like to have a go at a couple of comments on here regarding this whole sordid mess (and please understand, I'm trying to be as respectful of everyone's opinion here): 1) To txjade: (regarding the "having trouble finding fault" comment): I made a complaint to the Federal Labour Program regarding violations of the Canada Labour Act. The investigator looked into the matter, and she thought so, as well. By legal definition, the company did contravene not one, but two parts of the Canada Labour Act. It's there in black and white. Also, if there was no fault, then there would have been no remittance (which I received by Registered mail today, thank you, outsiderelic.) However, if, after reading the act and realizing what transpired here, you still can't find fault, then I suppose, as it's been stated on here several times, we are all allowed to have our opinions. AND PLEASE STATE THEM. 2) To recyer: I was waiting for the investigators to finish looking into the matter, and I wanted them to get BOTH sides of the story and let them come to a decision based on the merits of the case- not from just what they said or I said. It's one thing for a driver to blow off steam on here, but it's a totally different matter when someone's made a complaint (valid or otherwise) to a federal authority. I felt that I was in the right on this, but if the investigator decided that I was not, having already opened that can of worms, it would be hard to backtrack on it. 3) To Farmbuilt_78: Isn't it strange, that the only people to chime in on your company's behalf were you and Kuchygirl- both dispatchers. Not drivers. Had it been a couple of drivers on here saying the same (or similar) things, that might be a bit of a different story. Frankly, I'm not a fan of dispatchers...mind you, I'm also not a fan of brussel sprouts, but hey, some people like them. And your statement of , "assuming that we are just "another company" that in your words gangs up on ex staff is as far from the truth as you can get"- really? You, Kuchygirl and outsiderelic had a good go at me, that's for sure. So, if you don't call that "ganging up", then what would be? Now THERE'S an interesting thought, eh? 4) To Kuchygirl: I'm not sure how to respond to a run on sentence like that. Meh...brussel sprouts? 5) To Pound Puppy: Yeah, back in the day is one thing, but up here, we have laws that are in place to keep klutzes from hurting themselves. Yeah, you can lump me in with that group, if ya want! 6) To Lowmax: I just did a load yesterday almost exactly the same as the one I mentioned- I was wrong about the height- it was 10'4" from the ground. Sure looks a lot taller when you're standing on it, with nothing to keep you from going A.O.T.K. Totally my bad. And totally not doing another load like that again... 7) To brsims: I read your posts ("hurtums you widdle feelings?")- Thank you. I now need to wipe up the coffee I snorted from laughing!!!! Also, your comment, "Companies that don't need to defend themselves on boards like this generally prove out to be some of the better outfits to work for. The ones that do...well, where's there is smoke, there's generally a fire, ya?"- well.....'nuff said, really. Couldn't have said it better, myself. 8) And last, but not least, outsiderelic: Well, you have to admit, it's been a bit of an interesting month, eh? You're entitled to your opinion, and even though I seem a bit hostile, I'm glad that you hopped on here and made the comments that you did. I have no problem with that- however, you made a couple of comments on here that I'd like to address: "In regards to this employee it was just a bad hire. He did take us to the labour board. There were a couple mistakes on this employees pay. They were honest mistakes and totaled under $200.00, which we paid instantly." - Actually, it was more than that, and it wasn't "honest mistakes". Well, I'll be led to believe that one of them was honest (clerical error)- but the other, nope, sorry. There is evidence that witholding for the ticket in Garland was deliberate. But you are right on one thing- this was a bad fit. I was a bad fit for what you were looking for, and you were a bad for what I was looking for- on that we can agree. "I find Peter claims unfounded and untrue." - Well, you may think that my claims unfounded (in regards to the Canada Labour Act), but the Federal Labour investigator thought otherwise- and THAT is why you got a call. I also find it suspicious that you decided to pay out the "mistake" and the traffic violation reimbursement without argument. If you really were in the right, why pay it out- actually, nevermind. We can guess the answer (or at least, have an opinion). So, insofar as all of this is concerned, with the exception of one matter (that is still before the Federal Labour investigators), seems like this is resolved. Unless Kuchygirl, or Farmbuilt_78 jump on me again. Ugh, let the hatemail begin.