The beginning of the end for Fleece Owner contracts?

[Dispatch_This]

The California Supreme Court Thursday rejected a bid by FedEx Corp. to reverse a verdict making its independent contractor drivers full-time employees, Bloomberg reported.

The ruling late Wednesday rejected the company’s claim that the trial and appeals courts erred in deciding that the company’s FedEx Ground unit’s workers should be accorded full-time status, Bloomberg said.

FedEx must pay the drivers $11.3 million in damages for expenses such as truck purchases, gas and uniforms, according to Lynn Faris, a lawyer representing the drivers, Bloomberg reported.

More than 200 drivers sued FedEx in state court in Los Angeles, claiming the company treats independent contractors like full- time employees while denying them full pay and benefits.

The case has a “binding effect” on four similar federal cases combined with claims from 36 states pending before U.S. District Judge Robert Miller in South Bend, Ind., Faris told Bloomberg.

But FedEx spokesman Maury Lane denied that, saying that any further dispensation of the case is speculation that must still be determined in the Indiana court, Bloomberg reported.

[GMAN]

I am not sure that it will be the end of the fleece purchase programs, but it will certainly get the attention of some of these carriers who offer them. Although I haven't read the ruling I can see some possible differences in the two programs. FedEx is forced dispatch and the company has control over their operators. With some of the carriers who offer the fleece programs, the lease operators may have some choice as to which loads and where he runs. If he is doing one of these programs and under forced dispatch, then he is under the physical control of the carrier. I would guess this is where the lines will be drawn.

[mike3fan]

what long term effect on the trucking industry might this have?

from ooida
Truckers who are based in the state of Washington have won a major court victory on overtime pay.

The Columbian Newspaper reports that a state Supreme Court ruling was upheld on Monday, Nov. 26, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

The state court ruled earlier that truckers who log more than 40 hours a week are entitled to overtime pay. The decision opens the possibility that other drivers could file similar suits and force trucking companies to re-examine driver compensation.

The court awarded nearly $10,000 in unpaid overtime to trucker Larie Bostain of Vancouver, who had filed suit against his former employer, Food Express Incorporated of Arcadia, CA.

[ncnewbie]

Put the drivers on salary with bonuses if they drive more than X miles?

[furbis]

Fedex Ground in not forced dispatch, I lease a truck to them and when I am called about a load I can take it or not, Fedex has very little contact with my drivers and everything is run through me therefore I am an independent contractor not an employee my drivers are employees but they work for me not fedex. the lawsuit had more to do with the home delivery division and in my opinion just because a california court made a ruling it does not mean its the right one.

[no_worries]

Actually, it was the right decision with respect to the home delivery guys. But as you said, the linehaul is a whole different ballgame. Most of what was involved in this suit is not relevant to the majority of OTR leases.

[BanditsCousin]

Fedex is not a staple "fleece purchase" program, like CRE, SWift, etc.

fed ex ground is an o/o company. no different than landstar, mercer, etc.

[gcal]

good or not at least someone is doing something other then bitching over the cb or in a truck stop and the best thing is, that someone is paying attention. % years from now these companies will pay drivers alot different and the hiring pool will also be alot different.