Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree9Likes
  • 5 Post By RedRollingRoadblock
  • 1 Post By 222lifer
  • 2 Post By ABFwife
  • 1 Post By 222lifer

Thread: Judge Sides with Port Drivers

  1. #1
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,711
    Rep Power
    266

    Default Judge Sides with Port Drivers

    https://www.trucks.com/2017/12/04/ju...ication-fight/

    Intermodal Bridge Transport violated federal law by engaging in unfair labor practices, including misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, an administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board ruled.

    IBT, a subsidiary of Chinese-owned COSCO Group, was also ordered to cease and desist from interrogating, threatening or coercing employees at its Wilmington, Calif., terminal who support the forming of a union, Judge Dickie Montemayor said in his Nov. 28 decision.

    IBT, which has approximately 95 drivers, now has 28 days to file an exception with the NLRB regarding Montemayor’s ruling, said Michael Manley, counsel for the Teamsters Port Division, which filed the complaint on behalf of the drivers in 2015.
    2631, fxstc07, ABFwife and 2 others like this.

  2. #2
    On A Mission

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Local Union
    429
    Employer
    NPME/YRC
    Posts
    13,685
    Rep Power
    896

    Default Re: Judge Sides with Port Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by RedRollingRoadblock View Post
    I thought this stuff wasn't going our way with Trump?
    Looks like it's working out OK in this story.

  3. #3
    Scab Hating Union Thug

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Local Union
    222
    Employer
    YRC
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    24,318
    Rep Power
    1113

    Default Re: Judge Sides with Port Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by slavenomore View Post
    I thought this stuff wasn't going our way with Trump?
    Looks like it's working out OK in this story.
    Welcome to California.
    ABFwife likes this.

  4. #4
    Taking A Stand!!!

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Local Union
    492
    Employer
    ABF
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    36,306
    Rep Power
    845

    Default Re: Judge Sides with Port Drivers

    Misclassification of Independent Contractor is Violation of NLRA, ALJ Rules


    This is written more in the legal terms.

    Intermodal Bridge Transportation (IBT) used independent contractor drivers to move shipping containers between customer locations in the Los Angeles area to ports and rail hubs. The drivers leased their trucks from IBT and operated under IBT’s operating authority. Further, drivers were subject to IBT policies, were required to sign a variety of forms, had no control over their customers, and did not negotiate their pay rates. Although drivers could choose which days to work and their start time, they could not choose their shifts. Drivers paid certain costs to IBT and received payment for each container they moved.

    The NLRB General Counsel issued a complaint following an organizing campaign by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging violations of the NLRA. All of the GC’s allegations depended on whether the drivers were statutory employees protected by the Act.
    Relying on the Board’s ruling in FedEx, 361 NLRB No. 55 (2014), the ALJ concluded that, under common law agency principles, drivers were misclassified as independent contractors and decided they actually were employees covered by the Act.
    The ALJ directed IBT to cease and desist from misclassifying its employees and make employees whole for any losses of earnings and other benefits, including reimbursing employees for consequential harm as a result of the misclassification.
    https://www.natlawreview.com/article...nlra-alj-rules

  5. #5
    Scab Hating Union Thug

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Local Union
    222
    Employer
    YRC
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    24,318
    Rep Power
    1113

    Default Re: Judge Sides with Port Drivers

    Pay very close attention to this folks. The new GC or General Counsel is none other than Trump's boy Peter B. Robb. Any ideas why he withdrew his predecessor's argument? This guy's gig was a management side attorney for years.

    If the ALJ’s ruling is appealed by the employer, it is uncertain what action and position the GC will take and how the Board will rule. On December 1, the new General Counsel issued a*Mandatory Submissions to Advice memo**in which he withdrew an initiative of his predecessor to argue to the NLRB that an employer’s misclassification of employees as independent contractors in and of itself violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. In light of the memorandum, if Intermodal appeals the ALJ’s ruling to the Board, the new GC*could*side with the employer.

    https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/mi...pendent-98109/

    Sent from my SM-J327T using Tapatalk
    ABFwife likes this.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327