Trucker Fired For Refusing To Drive In Bad Weather Awarded $180k

According to the operating contract, it is non forced dispatch.

 

Yup, but how many of those lease drivers actually read the contract? Or better yet, understand all of the language in the contract? I have a buddy that has leased at 7 times that I can think of, and i tell to see if he can get an attorney to check those contracts out. He never does, and gets done in every time. It seems to always happen when the truck has a major breakdown. I have heard conversations between him and the company arguing because of something he signed, bit did it blindly.

 

“Stupid” is a conscious choice that many make.

 

Only problem is those kinds of retaliations are easy to prove in court and companies should be smarter than that. I understand the logic behind the post. But, if any company has any experience or research about such things, they probably would know it is not in their best interests. Bottom line money realities, in businesses, usually win out over sour tastes in their mouth. In other words, they'll probably treat this guy well, because to do otherwise will end up costing a lot more money. It ain't about whether they like it or not, unless 'revenge' is more important to them than money. Most businesses, money wins. The reality is he'll probably end up with preferential treatment on loads and vacation requests and those sorts of things. They will be very leery of doing anything with this driver that even hints at retaliation. Like I said, if the guy tries to make a case for retaliation to court, the company starts with a major disadvantage, they already have the motivation factor working against them. If this driver goes back to work for them, any actual work they get out of him they'll probably consider a bonus. Is it fair, not really. But, how often does a situation actually end up working in favor of an employee over a company. So much more companies taking advantages of employees. Fair, equal, just, all aside, I personally think it's kinda nice to see that sometimes the deck actually gets stacked against the company instead of against the driver. I'm sure others have differing opinions on that.

 

One potential hick-up with this. The 'defense' will be able to subpoena company records on how ALL their employees are treated, disciplined and monitored. If it can be shown that this driver was given more scrutiny on such matters, that, in and of itself, is usually considered grounds for retaliation. So, unless the company maintains the same 'high level' of scrutiny and documentation and adverse actions of ALL their employees, the retaliation claim becomes actually easier to make.

 

Dispatch can give a driver any load and route they choose to, its not illegal.
And if a driver damages a truck they alone are responsible for it.
So let the driver whine in court, then counter sue him for legal fees and damages.

 

You are mixing Apples with Oranges. Your comment that I quoted was assuming such a driver returned to work and because of their status became a pain. In such a situation what happens to other employees is not relevant. This is because other employees will not get the rope this person got. This is the primary thing to understand with this. The court ordered a carrier to give someone a lot of rope. A carrier can not just start writing Memo for records every time this driver passes gas, that would get them serious sanctions by a judge. However in such a case in the hands of a good manager who is also noting the warnings these memos can have the force of law. Bottom line? You win a lawsuit, force your employer to take you back? Go back to work and do your best to be a good employee, otherwise, that company can and in most circumstances at some point will let you go.

 

I do have some experience in this arena. I was a Union Steward, Local President and numerous other positions within our Union. I am not saying I am right, I'm sure many will disagree. But, my statements and assessments are based upon real life experiences I have been a part of. Had a supervisor write up an employee for being late. We got ahold of the security camera footage showing when employees come and go out of the parking lot and were able to show that several of his employees were late on a regular basis and the employee he wrote up was being scrutinized significantly more than other employees under this supervisor, grievance won. A lot more to that story regarding the bad motivation of this supervisor against this employee. The worker was a long term employee and had never had problems before and there were no issues with the actual quality or quantity of the employee's work. The supervisor involved simply had a beef against this worker that was not legitimate or proper. Also had an employee who had won a major costly discrimination settlement several years earlier at a different office. I never learned the details of it, but I know that our management treated this guy very carefully and considered him protected. I have seen things in this area and am only stating what I think based off of those observations and experiences.
Also not trying to imply that this worker can go back and be a total douche and not do any work and be simply terrible. There are naturally limits. I'm simply stating that the company will have to be careful in how they treat this employee. If it can be shown that he was in any manner singled out and treated differently than others, negatively, it is easy to prove retaliation. If hints of being negatively singled out can make it's hard for a company to win against a retaliation claim.

 

In terms of retaliation, I respectfully completely disagree. If the defense can show that this employee was not treated with the same latitude other employees receive, it is retaliation.

 

Can you read and comprehend the fricking English language? Did you read the next sentence I wrote after that? I was already saying other employees were not getting the same latitude.

I'm done with this thread and reading your comments from this moment forward. Have a great life!