New Document: NLRB Certification Order for Local 25
We've uploaded the NLRB order that certified Teamsters Local Union 25 as the collective bargaining representative for the drivers at the two FedEx Home Delivery terminals in Wilmington, MA. This order is the last step in the NLRB process. The company is now legally obligated to begin bargaining with Local 25 for a contract for the Wilmington drivers.
-- July 09
Hartford Courant Update on Windsor HD Election
The local Hartford paper printed an article following the news of the Connecticut Department of Labor decision that a multi-vehicle contractor was an employee.
The reporter also focused on the next step in the NLRB process - a hearing into frivolous objections filed by the company in its latest delay tactic.
FedEx Corp. is challenging the validity of two ballots, as well as the union's conduct. Under federal law, either side may challenge an election.
The hearings, which begin Monday, are expected to last about a week, said Michael Cass, supervisory examiner for the Hartford NLRB office, one of 33 for the federal agency.
The NLRB in Hartford oversaw the election, which took place in mid-May. The ballots were not counted until this month because FedEx requested a review by the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Hartford NLRB's decision to allow the election. The national headquarters denied the company's request and allowed the votes to be tallied.
As the article notes, the law allows either side to file objections to challenge the integrity of the election or the election results. The NLRB generally holds a hearing into the legal merits of the objections. If the objections have no legal leg to stand on, then the Board regional office will reject the objection and recommend that the NLRB certify the election outcome.
Sound familiar? This is the exact process of what happened in Wilmington for the two Home Delivery units there. In Boston, FedEx denied the drivers their rights, delayed the process every step of the way and lost each and every ruling. And in the end, those HD drivers prevailed and they became members of Teamster Local Union 25.
So what is happening in Windsor is more of the same (even if the company fired its other law firm and brought in another firm): Fedex is sticking to its strategy of deny, delay and lose.
-- June 28
Memphis Papers Reports on FedEx's NLRB Problem
The managers at FedEx Corp headquarters woke up to a big story in their hometown paper on FedEx Ground's NLRB problem.
By intervening, the NLRB said it agreed that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors, according to Patricia Gilbert, NLRB spokeswoman in Washington.
The decision was made by the regional director in Massachusetts.
FedEx disagrees with the ruling on principle and alleges that the Teamsters engaged in "objectionable misconduct," which tainted election results. The company has filed an objection.
Well, since the company disagrees on "principle" then we can just throwaway the law and say they've been right all along and that the courts, the state auditors and the NLRB have been wrong every time.
Technically, the certification of Teamster Local Union 25 as the two Home Delivery units' collective bargaining agent ends the objection process for the company.
And the company has clearly said what their next step is.
Since 2001, NLRB regional offices have ruled six times that FedEx Ground and Home Delivery drivers are not independent contractors, giving them the right to form a union.
John Budd, labor relations professor at the University of Minnesota, finds it interesting that the more conservative Bush administration NLRB ruled in favor of the workers.
"The real test will be to see if FedEx appeals the decision," he said.
In order to get a court review, FedEx says it will refuse to bargain with the new Teamster group in Massachusetts, forcing the union to file a grievance.
What is left unsaid in the last sentence of this article is that the company's 'refusal to bargain' is itself illegal and will result in a NLRB complaint. So FedEx is not only a serial tax cheat by misclassifying drivers but also a serial labor law scofflaw. Hard to tell how those FedEx managers in Memphis and Pittsburgh feel about that.
-- June 27
New Resource: CT Employment Security Ruling on MVC as Employee
The Connecticut Department of Labor has ruled that a former FedEx Home Delivery driver was wrongly classified as a "contractor." The state audit found the driver to be an employee, thus eligible for Connecticut unemployment insurance benefits.
The May 2007 ruling found the company failed the state's ABC Test in reviewing the claim filed by Keith Ignasiak, a driver who operated multiple delivery routes between 2006 and 2007.
FedEx Corporation (NYSE: FDX) unit FedEx Ground and subsidiary FedEx Home Delivery maintains that its drivers are "independent contractors" and not company employees. FedEx Ground employs approximately 15,000 such drivers to provide delivery services. FedEx Ground is the subject of numerous lawsuits and state investigations into the misclassification of its drivers.
The Connecticut Department of Labor Employment Security Division audit concluded that although Ignasiak was a multiple route contractor, he was "not free to hire his own workers" and "could not assign his route to any other individual or relief driver at his discretion." The audit concluded "the claimant did not render services in the capacity of an entrepreneur."
The company was offered the opportunity to appeal the determination findings per state law but did not file an appeal in Ignasiak's case.
This Connecticut ruling extends the application of employee status beyond earlier rulings covering only single service area drivers in that state. The audit noted, "due to the employer's size and nature of the employer's business, there are many other suspected misclassified single-vehicle contractors, multiple-vehicle contractors, temporary drivers, and temporary helpers...performing services for FedEx Ground."
"The recent National Labor Relations Board Region 34 order that found the drivers at the Windsor, Connecticut Home Delivery terminal were, in fact, employees and not contractors was just the tip of the iceberg," said Dave Lucas, Local 671 Secretary-Treasurer. "FedEx may use slippery language and call its drivers so-called ‘independent contractors,' but the scam does not stand up to scrutiny here in Connecticut."
FedEx Home Delivery drivers in Windsor, Connecticut, voted to join Local 671 in Hartford in an election held in May. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) next must certify the election. In Boston, the NLRB recently certified Local 25 as the collective bargaining representative for two FedEx Home Delivery terminals.
-- June 26
FedEx Looks to Courts to Be Proved Wrong Again
It looks like FedEx Ground again wants a court to rule against them. After claiming that the Home Delivery drivers are 'contractors' in hearing after hearing and argument after argument, and after seeing the NLRB Region 1 officials, the Administrative Law Judge and the NLRB national officials rule against them. Fred Smith and the company is looking to the courts to be proved wrong again
The National Labor Relations Board in a June 18 order certified a 24-8 vote at two Wilmington facilities from Oct. 20 after reviewing the company's objections of improper conduct, the Washington-based union said today in a statement.
FedEx, the world's largest air-cargo carrier, disagrees with the decision and "will use the only means available to us to get a court review - refusing to bargain," company spokesman Maury Lane said in an e-mailed statement.
The next chapter of this is yet to be written.
-- June 22
Massachusetts Awards Unemployment to Fired Wilmington Driver
In yet another blow to FedEx's scheme to classify employees as independent contractors, Massachusetts has awarded a former FedEx Home Delivery driver unemployment benefits retroactive to his firing this past March.
"FedEx's illegal misclassification of its employees as independent contractors continues to unravel," said Sean M. O'Brien, President of Local 25 in Boston, which represents FedEx Home Delivery drivers at two locations in Wilmington, Massachusetts.
Former driver Joe Pasquale was fired in March after the company asserted that he abandoned his route. Pasquale was a supporter of Local 25's successful organizing campaign, voting along with his coworkers to join the Teamsters.
During the campaign, Pasquale found out he had cancer. In fact, Pasquale showed up to vote right after leaving a chemotherapy treatment, inspiring his coworkers. When he became too ill, the company hired someone to take over his route, and Pasquale had no input into that decision. The replacement worker failed to perform the job, but Pasquale was held responsible by the company and fired.
At Local 25's urging, Pasquale filed for unemployment benefits. This week, the state agreed that Pasquale is eligible for the benefits because he was an employee.
"This case furthers a precedent in Massachusetts that if FedEx fires a driver from its Home Delivery or Ground divisions, they must pay his or her insurance," O'Brien said. "These workers deserve that benefit because they are employees and not independent contracts as the company alleges. This is another major victory for FedEx workers in Massachusetts."
This is the latest ruling in Massachusetts where a FedEx worker was found to be an employee. In March, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination rejected FedEx Ground Package System's argument that four of its Arab-American drivers are independent contractors and ineligible for protection under the state's anti-discrimination law.
In a similar unemployment case in, a former Home Delivery worker in Northboro, Massachusetts who was fired for supporting a Teamster campaign was awarded unemployment benefits in August 2006.
-- June 15
New York to Act on Misclassification
The New York Times labor beat reporter filed a story in Saturday's paper that must have been assigned reading in Pittsburgh and Memphis this morning.
(New York) Gov. Eliot Spitzer is planning to step up enforcement against thousands of companies that illegally misclassify workers as independent contractors to cheat on taxes and skimp on employee benefits, the state labor commissioner said yesterday.
The commissioner, M. Patricia Smith, said the Spitzer administration was focusing on misclassification because it costs the state a significant amount in unemployment insurance taxes and workers' compensation premiums while denying many workers overtime pay.
"We are developing a plan to address this law-breaking practice, which has been left unchecked for 12 years," Ms. Smith said. She refused to disclose details because the administration has not finished developing the enforcement plan.
<snip>
When workers are classified as independent contractors, employers do not have to pay unemployment insurance taxes, workers' compensation premiums or the employer's portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes - typically 7.65 percent of wages. In addition, independent contractors do not have a right to unionize and are exempt from minimum wage and overtime protections, as well as from most discrimination and occupational safety laws. They also do not usually receive the health and pension benefits that other workers receive.
<snip>
When Mr. Spitzer was the state's attorney general, he acted vigorously against several companies that misclassified workers. He brought enforcement actions against two supermarket companies, Gristedes and Food Emporium, as well as their delivery companies.
The companies said their grocery deliverymen did not have to be paid minimum wage or overtime, under the theory that they were independent contractors and not employees. Each supermarket company settled for $3 million. Mr. Spitzer also took action against several well-known Manhattan restaurants and a company that provided them with bathroom attendants, accusing them of misclassifying the attendants as independent contractors and sometimes paying as little as $2.14 an hour, well below the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
The list of states that are focusing on this issue just keeps getting longer. The article also mentions New Jersey Gov. Corzine's efforts.
Sharing some of the same concerns, Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey announced a plan last summer to battle misclassification. As part of that effort, the New Jersey Treasury Department and Labor Department adopted a unified definition of an employee and began holding quarterly meetings to coordinate their enforcement.
Each year New Jersey's Labor Department audits about 2 percent of employees, and in 2005 it found more than 26,000 misclassified. The state estimated that this resulted in $5 million in unpaid taxes.
As part of the New Jersey enforcement effort, state officials found that a national package delivery company was routinely misclassifying drivers.
To minimize the practice, the Cornell study urged New York State's government to conduct high-profile enforcement actions and to clarify its definitions of employee and independent contractor. The report also urged New York to do what a three-year-old Massachusetts law does: create a presumption that every worker is an employee, unless demonstrated otherwise.
What's a national package delivery company who routinely misclassifies drivers to do when the tax man - or a whole bunch of tax men - come? Simply referring to an IRS letter dated January 9, 1995 isn't going to satisfy these folks.
-- June 11
CA Drivers Will Get their Day in Court
After the landmark ruling in Los Angeles Superior Court in the Estrada case that ruled the single-route drivers in California are employees , FedEx (predictably) appealed the judgment.
The appeal now before the California Second Appellate Division (go here and search for case B189031) is fully briefed and oral arguments were set for June 26. Until FedEx (predictably) asked to delay the court date. The court has now scheduled the arguments for July 24.
There is a lot going on in Californa, so don't confuse the Estrada judgment appeal with the California audit determination appeal. And remember what Perry says: all these court decisions, government audit determinations and NLRB orders are wrong and FedEx is right but just following 'perfectly legal procedures' to delay and deny the drivers their rights.
-- June 08
Fair Use Quote from FedExaminer.com
Things written under copyright protection can't be printed elsewhere in full form. But select quotes can be used under fair use provisions to allow for continued debate and discussion in the public sphere. Here's a quote from a weekend commentator at FedExaminer.com talking about FedEx Ground or FedEx Home Delivery:
After inquiring about a route for sale and then visiting with my banker, he suggested some things, one being to go online and see if there was a chat room or forum to get some feel from other IC's what to expect. I am glad that he suggested to do so. I have only been member for a few days, but the reading that I have done has changed my mind about purchasing the route I was considering. Thanks to my banker and thanks to all you.
That wins the essay contest for "Explain Why the Internet is Important to Workers in 100 Words or Less." If you are reading FedExWatch and not a subscriber to FedExaminer, then pry open your wallet and sign up.
FedEx - like most companies - doesn't tell prospective employees or so-called "contractors" the type of information that a worker needs to know before joining a firm and committing his working life to that company. In the past, these conversations happened between friends, family or neighbors if one were lucky enough to know someone who knew someone. That kind of word of mouth networking was helpful to some but many others made decisions with very little understanding of what they were getting into before taking a job. Not any more. Workers on the net unite.
-- May 29
NLRB Again Rejects FedEx in Hartford
FedEx once again requested the NLRB review the Region 34 order finding the Hartford Home Delivery single vehicle drivers to be employees.
And the NLRB once again threw it back in their face. REJECTED again.
Next step is to open the ballot box and count the votes. Could be days or weeks before the results are announced. The wheels of justice grind on slowly but surely.
-- May 25
California EDD Audit Upheld at Court of Appeals
A California Employment Development Department audit of UPS subsidiary Sonic Air that determined the company's drivers were wrongly classified was recently upheld at the California Court of Appeals. The case is a predecessor to FedEx Ground's similar case against the EDD for its audit determination.
The Sonic Air case has run the gauntlet ; two appeals at the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, an appeal before the Sacramento County Superior Court and an appeal before the California Court of Appeals. The EDD audit withstood all challenges.
When one compares and contrasts the Sonic Air case with the FedEx Ground case , at least in California, the only conclusion can be that FedEx Ground will ultimately be on the losing side. Again.
-- May 18
FedEx Ground drivers new BFF: John Tuzynski?
Are FedEx Ground drivers about to have a new best friend forever?
Meet John Tuzynski. He is the IRS Employment Tax Operations chief.
According to the BNA report for May 16, 2007:
"It's safe to say if you thought worker classification cases were increasing, you are going to see a nice increase in our fiscal 2008 plan," Tuzynski said. "This will be a major area of emphasis for us."
IRS has entered into a partnership with the Labor Department, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, the Federation of Tax Advisers, and workforce agencies that administer state employment and unemployment taxes in California, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Carolina.
"[W]hat that means is that I am sending training materials to state workforce agencies, and we are training some of their examiners," he said. "We are sending them leads and they are sending us leads. We are also sending them information on cash payment reporting, and some day we see this extending out to all 50 states."
Don't be surprised if we start seeing the words "Tuzynski" and "tax gap" and "FedEx" in the same news stories with increasing frequency.
The BNA article also introduces us to Janine Cook:
Janine Cook, branch chief (Tax Exempt/Government Entities) in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel, said IRS becomes concerned when employers force workers into signing contracts stating that they are independent contractors, without benefits, in order to get work.The states are already on the case. Congress is on the case. And now the IRS is increasing on the case. Tax cheats beware."These cases are not always that on the fence," she said. "Where we get concerned is when someone is putting on the contractor label, making the worker sign this document if they want to work. They think the contract rules the tax classification and it doesn't," she said.
-- May 17
Hartford HD Drivers Vote But Ballots Not Counted
The Home Delivery drivers in the Hartford terminal voted this morning as ordered by the NLRB. The company again inserted another delaying tactic into the process by requesting the NLRB review the Region 34 Regional Director's decision on the driver status. While this request for review is considered by the NLRB, the Hartford ballots have been impounded and will be counted in the near future.
The entire FedEx strategy in the NLRB process is wholly predictable. The FedEx strategy is deny, delay and lose. FedEx denies the drivers are employees, FedEx delays the process with days of meaningless testimony at a hearing, then FedEx loses in the end when the Regional Director rules the drivers are in fact employees.
This request for review tactic is more of the same. FedEx denies that the Regional Director made proper the ruling, FedEx delays by requesting the ballots get impounded and then FedEx will lose.
FedEx will lose this request for review just like the company lost in its reviews in Barrington, like they lost in Northboro and like they lost in Wilmington.
Although delayed by the process, the justice for the Hartford drivers won't be denied. We expect a ruling from the NLRB within a few weeks and then the ballots will be counted.
-- May 11
Hartford HD Drivers to Vote May 11
The single-vehicle contractors at the Home Delivery terminal in Hartford, CT go to vote for Teamsters Local Union 671 on May 11. The company sent the usual suspects (Tim Edmonds, recently charged with unfair labor practices in Northboro) but also sent other senior managers from Pittsburgh to make phony claims and empty promises. The Hartford drivers are taking the next step to standing up to the FedEx scam.
-- May 10
FedEx Ground Denies NLRB Allegations in Northboro
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette followed up with the NLRB and reports on FedEx Ground's response to the Region 1 complaint.
Although the language suggests that it is the Teamsters that have made the allegations, in fact the complaint comes from the NLRB and its investigation of the practices by FedEx in its anti-union campaign in Northboro. If the workers' charges of unfair labor practices in Northboro were just hot air, then the NLRB investigation would conclude without a sound. Instead, the NLRB concluded that there was enough evidence of illegal actions by FedEx to file the complaint.
This is very similar to what happened to unfair labor practice charges stemming from the Barrington, NJ events. In that case, the NLRB complaint also caused brave talk from FedEx spokesmen but ultimately FedEx Ground settled for cash considerations with those workers.
-- May 08
Hartford Paper Reports on Windsor Organizing Campaign
The Hartford Courant got early wind of the NLRB Region 34 decision and put out an article last Saturday.
FedEx spokesperson Perry Colosimo continue to live in an alternate universe and repeats the company line.
"We disagree with the NLRB regional district's ruling and, as usual in these cases, we're prepared to go forth with an election at our Hartford facility," said Perry Colosimo, a spokesman for FedEx Ground.
Colosimo said most of the FedEx workers that the company considers to be independent contractors would prefer to remain independent. He did not say whether the company would appeal the decision.
Hello, Perry? Didn't you read the Region 34 Director's decision that said, "Between November 2, 2004 and September 20, 2006, three other regional offices have issued a total of four Decisions and Direction of Elections regarding the issue of whether the Employer's contract drivers are employees or independent contractors...In all four DDE's, the Regional Directors rejected the company's claim that drivers at issue were independent contractors....I take administrative notice of the fact that the Board denied the Employer's Request for Review in all four cases regarding the determination that contract drivers were statutory employees within the meaning of the Act."
So who do you believe, Perry or the NLRB?
-- April 20
Initial Thoughts on FedEx Express Race Case Settlement
Certainly, FedEx Express didn't easily part with $55 million. Or gleefully agree to the large scale changes to its hiring and employment policies. The FedEx Express workers bravely took on the company and the company blinked.
This latest cave-in by FedEx just goes to show how powerful a group of workers can be.
Remember how FedEx talked tough as recently as its 2006 annual report. In Note 19 from the company's annual report, they said
The district court's ruling on class certification is not a decision on the merits of the plaintiffs' claim and does not address whether we will be held liable. Trial is currently scheduled for February 2007. We have denied any liability and intend to vigourously defend ourselves in this case.
Remember how FedEx talked tough in the face of the California class action lawsuit for off-the-clock work - another case FedEx settled at the last minute - in the 2005 annual report.
The plaintiffs allege that hourly employees are routinely required to work "off the clock" and are not paid for this additional work. . . . We have denied any liability with respect to these claims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these cases.
And now look at how FedEx talks tough about the FedEx Ground misclassification lawsuit in its 2006 annual report.
We strongly believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and we will prevail in these proceedings.
This has been a very long losing streak for FedEx.
-- April 12
NLRB Complaint Hits the Papers
The NLRB Region 1 complaint against FedEx Home Delivery for unfair labor practices in Northboro, MA was widely covered in the media. As Teamster General President Jim Hoffa said, "In FedEx’s quarterly earnings announcement last week, CEO Fred Smith bragged about his company. This week, the company’s real face of threats, forgeries, intimidation and firings has been exposed."
A Bloomberg article provided more analysis of the independent contractor issued. The reporter noted Fred Smith has claimed "FedEx has successfully defended itself in more than 100 lawsuits challenging the model." While that may be technically true, the FedEx CEO fails to mention how cases like a decision in 1992 from the Texas Employment Security Commission is relevant to 2007. Fred Smith also doesn't mention the series of depositions of FedEx executives like Dan Sullivan and Dave Rebholz in the on-going national litigation.
The Reuters article had more empty talk from FedEx Ground spokesmen. In the last paragraph, however, the unnamed writer confuses the Northboro FedEx Home Delivery unit that is the subject of the NLRB complaint with the Northboro FedEx Smartpost unit that voted last month. Dow Jones also had a short wire story on the complaint.
The hometown Worcester Telegram & Gazette went and spoke with at least one of the former drivers. And since that paper is the one the workers still in the Northboro terminal will most likely read, their coverage is the most important. Typically, FedEx wouldn't return the hometown paper call in time for the article.
-- April 05
Massachusetts Rejects FedEx's Argument Again
FedEx Ground continues to have a hard time convincing anyone in the Massachusetts state government that its drivers are "contractors" as the company claims.
First there was the August 2006 unemployment insurance appeal ruling that found a driver to be an employee and eligible for unemployment benefits.
Now comes the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination refusal to dismiss the complaint of four Muslim men who are claiming discrimination based on their race and religious belief.
Both Reuters and the Associated Press filed wire stories which got picked up widely - even by the international newspapers and financial press .
The company's losing streak in Massachusetts is long and growing.
-- March 06
FedEx Express Age Discrimination Lawsuit Moving Ahead
The law firm representing a class of FedEx Express couriers who allege age discrimination at the company issued a press release with an update on the case.
Currently two cases have been filed against the world's largest cargo carrier: Holowecki, et al., filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of NY, 1:02-cv-03355 JSR, and Clausnitzer, et al., filed in the US District Court in the Central District of California, SACV 05-1269 DOC (ANx). The lawsuits are based upon Federal Express' violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
-- February 23
Page 3 of 6 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
