Pushy Dispatcher threatens to fine me $600 is it legal?

I would say it would depend on WHEN the monetary penalty happened. If I do work for you, you owe me the money. Before you pay me, if you hold that money as ransom unless I do something for you that I never agreed to, then it's an illegal "fine" and you are subject to huge penalties or jail time. If we have a contract that states "If such and such happens, a fee of XXX.XX dollars will be assessed" and I sign it and its a legal contract, it's not a "fine." It's just a fee. But a fine, there is no way to avoid it if its assessed AFTER the money has been earned. There is a difference. A "fine" has to do with a court, a judge and, to some degree, a jury.

Our company has a contract with the brokers that state if our drivers are on site longer than 2 hours. there is a XX dollar fee per hour to keep the truck on site. That's not a fine and its not illegal. But there is a way to avoid the fee. Just get the truck out in less than 2 hours. It's just part of the contract. But it's not a FINE. A fine is a penalty. It's not based on the broker doing something they don't want to do, such as take a load they don't want to take. It's simply "If you agree to take this load, we can't be on site more than 2 hours without fees being assessed."

It's also a business-to-business thing. Not an employer to employee thing.

Understanding Trucking Detention Pay for Carriers and Freight Brokers

Assessing Fines and Fees in the Criminal Justice System.

 

You can record, but you have to inform the other party.

 

What are you talking about?

"fining" a customer?

You said this - "Once that time allotment is exceeded, the customer is then fined at an hourly rate, which any company worth their salt will pay a portion of to the driver."

Does the contract have in it specific times allowed to load and unload?

Is there a penalty clause in the contract?

Who is the customer?

 

He's using the wrong word. Of course a broker contract can say "If the truck is on site more than 2 hours, a fee of 50 dollars an hour will be assessed." That's a fee, not a fine. It's not a punishment for anything, it's an attempt to get the driver paid for his time if he has to sit too long. But there is a way to avoid the fee, get the truck moving. Nobody is forcing someone to do something against their will, like "If you don't take this load I will fine you 600 dollars." Um no, you won't. I didn't sign a contract saying I would take that load, so you can't fine me a #### thing.

 

If I remember correctly, a few years back FMCSA established a rule against carriers extorting drivers into violating HOS. Calling drivers while they're on their break to discuss business is not that though. So, the way I see it, if he called the OP to let him know that he'd be penalized for a missed appointment regardless of HOS that's illegal but if the dispatch called to let him know that they'd panelize him due to sheer tardiness, that's not FMCSA business.

 

Just ask the pesky dispatcher for his/her home phone number so you can keep them informed 24/7 on where you are.

 

What a huge amount of bloviating about the law! Y’all are missing the point of the original situation, which is that some power-crazed dispatcher is blowing up the driver’s phone during his 10-hour OFF DUTY sleep break, and then making threats when said driver won’t answer the phone.

That would happen exactly once to me. My next phone call would be to upper management, describing this encounter and demanding that they deal with this out of control ######. I’d also tell them that I’m no longer accepting ANY phone calls from him, and will be blocking his number on my phone.

I’d also probably start looking for a better job.

 

OK this is the OP. I focused on the issue of the "fine" under an employment agreement, nothing else.

Yes there is - https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/coercion
From the page - Coercion occurs when a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary threatens to withhold work from, take employment action against, or punish a driver for refusing to operate in violation of certain provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and the Federal Motor Carrier Commercial Regulations (FMCCRs). Coercion may be found to have taken place even if a violation has not occurred. An example of coercion is when a motor carrier terminates a driver for refusing to accept a load that would require the driver to violate the hours of service requirements. The following must have occurred in order for coercion to have existed:

• A motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary request a driver to perform a task that would result in the driver violating certain provisions of the FMCSRs, HMRs, or the FMCCRs;
• The driver informs the motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary of the violation that would occur if the task is performed, such as driving over the hours of service limits or creating unsafe driving conditions; and
• The motor carrier shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary make a threat or take action against the driver’s employment or work opportunities to get the driver to take the load despite the regulatory violation that would occur.

However there is a lot more

The STAA law itself - Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) 49 U.S.C. §31105 - has the following prohibitions in it;

(a) Prohibitions. -

(1) A person may not discharge an employee, or discipline or discriminate against an employee regarding pay, terms, or privileges of employment, because -
(A) (i) the employee, or another person at the employee's request, has filed a complaint or begun a proceeding related to a violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety or security regulation, standard, or order, or has testified or will testify in such a proceeding; or

(ii) the person perceives that the employee has filed or is about to file a complaint or has begun or is about to begin a proceeding related to a violation of a commercial motor vehicle safety or security regulation, standard, or order;

(B) the employee refuses to operate a vehicle because - (i) the operation violates a regulation, standard, or order of the United States related to commercial motor vehicle safety, health, or security; or

(ii) the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public because of the vehicle's hazardous safety or security condition;

You are 100% right, this went on a tangent, sorry from me about that OP.

 

Fix it or walk away. You don't have to choose to be a victim. Even in this crappy economy there are decent jobs for drivers if you apply.

 

OP has a problem. His first course of action is to ignore the dispatcher’s phone calls. Dispatcher becomes belligerent and behavior gets worse (it ALWAYS gets worse when you fail to correct bad behavior). According to the title of the thread, OP is asking about legalities because his next play is to hide behind the Law. Will that make the dispatcher’s behavior get better?

The way the universe works is that we have to go through the same trials and challenges until we learn how to deal with them correctly. So, even if he quits and finds another job, this type situation will pop up again. And again. Catch it at the start. Much easier to stop something before it builds inertia.