- Redmon discusses ‘Ice Road Truckers’ 100 comment(s)
- Rule bars handheld cell phone while driving Jan. 1 54 comment(s)
- Dave Redmon fired from one IRT show, quits other 32 comment(s)
- How to Become an O/O: To lease or not to lease 30 comment(s)
- Pilot, Flying J wrap up merger 27 comment(s)
- New rule retains the 11-hour driving limit 21 comment(s)
- Ice Road Truckers head to Himalayas 17 comment(s)
- TA launches driver health and wellness program 15 comment(s)
- Feature article: Runner with a cause 14 comment(s)
- Clash of the generations 14 comment(s)
Swift sued over employee status
January 27, 2010
| by: Jill Dunn
A law firm is seeking class action status in its suit against Swift Transportation and Interstate Equipment Leasing it charges wrongly classified truckers as owner-operators instead of employees.
Getman and Sweeny, a New York law firm representing employees in labor disputes, filed the suit Dec. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on behalf of John Doe and Joseph Sheer. Arizona-based Swift owns IEL, which leases trucks to Swift’s California and New York owner-operators.
The suit seeks wages required by federal and state wage and hour laws and money it alleges was deducted in violation of state statutes prohibiting deductions from employee pay for tools of the trade, such as accounting fees and equipment such as Qualcomm.
Swift did not respond to a Truckers News request for comment.
The firm charges that Swift controlled virtually every aspect of how the truckers did their business and handled their equipment. While the company could terminate the owner-operator contract at any time, when they did, their contract stipulated it be considered a default by plaintiffs and allows Swift to treat remaining lease payments and lost profit as owed immediately.
At least 100 owner-operators could qualify for the suit, which seeks more than $5 million.
On Dec. 9, a Los Angeles administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board ruled for the Teamsters union in its suit against Swift. The judge ordered Swift could not harass employees over union actions and to reinstate two employees fired after engaging in union activities.
12 Comments
Leave a Reply
- Randall-Reilly™
- ©2012 Truckers News Magazine | Trucking News |
- Privacy Policy |
- Terms and Conditions
been an o/o with swift since 01/01/2008
what does this lawsuit mean to me
how can I be part of this law suit let me know thx.
Member of the IWW I worked for Swift until recently.I quit working for Swift Completey.Swift to me was a hostile work place.Work without pay is not a Job and strickly forbidden on every other job I have ever worked . X Company Driver. I did sign the mile lawsuit.
What the suit means to all Swift drivers are really Employees of Swift which also means Swift must deduct federal and states payroll taxes from workers pay checks And pay the usual payroll states mandated by law such as; contributing to workers Social security, paying unemployment insurance, medicare and so forth.
The ruling was a good ruling favoring all Swift former and current drivers.
This is really huge if you know anything about employment law and the tradition and history of the relationship between owner-operator truckers and the companies they lease equipment to. I’ve thought about this a lot over the years. Really, an owner-operator is a person who is leasing a truck — not himself, but a truck — to a motor carrier. How that makes him an “independent contractor” as far as his employment duties are concerned has always escaped me. The only exception between an O/O an an employee driver is that, in some cases, O/O’s are not under “forced dispatch,” whereas employee drivers in virtually every case are. In every other aspect O/O’s take orders just like employee drivers do. For more information, do an Internet search for “am I an employee or an independent contractor for income tax purposes.”
Jill Dunn obviously did not proofread this before submitting it. She did a terrible job.
“A law firm is seeking class action status in its suit against Swift Transportation and Interstate Equipment Leasing it charges wrongly classified truckers as owner-operators instead of employees.”
Please use your grammar check.
so are some of the drivers going to get layed off from their job ??
si trabajas para una compania millonaria,pero te sientes pobre, frustrado, miserable y llevado del hijodeputa? no trabajes pare de sufrir, swift no es para ti…..
vive rapido; mueres joven, asi tendras un cadaver vien paresido {vonito}…
[...] Swift sued over employee status. Share this:TwitterFacebookPrintLinkedInDiggEmailMoreRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to [...]
how can i be a part of this law suite and also i need more information. i worked from: 1999 to: 2005 i also need who or what law firm is handling the law suite of mile shortage please contact me at rjimenez8752@yahoo.com or (210)
777-6257 thank you very much ralph jimenez.
What I can’t understand is how Swift and almost other carriers can get away with paying their drivers using PC Miler or House Hold Guide miles instead of actual miles driven,,It is just like working for Wal-Mart and getting paid for 8 hours when the employee actually worked more.If government wants to improve highway safety then trucking companies should be required to pay all driver employees by the hour wtih time and half for overtime.Driver paid by hte hour would surely drive slower and safer.