The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

NLRB Declares FedEx Hartford Delivery Drivers to be Employees

Posted on November 7, 2014 by Larry Bodine
FedEx delivery drivers are employees

The Board concluded all relevant factors taken together, “weighed heavily in favor of employee status.” With FedEx Home Delivery operating more than 500 terminals and 4,000 drivers nationwide, it is likely other driver’s will raise same or similar concerns.

The National Labor Relations Board ruled that 20 permanent drivers employed by FedEx Home Delivery’s (FHD) Hartford, Connecticut, terminal are employees and not independent contractors.

FedEx engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to recognize the union as collective bargaining representatives for the Hartford drivers. There were two reasons for the Board’s decision:

  • A lack of real entrepreneurial opportunities for the drivers.
  • Insufficient evidence to show the drivers ran a business.

 

In its September 30 decision, the Board noted that its ruling is not a sweeping one and other cases will be assessed individually.

Independent Contractors or Employees?

FedEx’s Standard Contractor Operating Agreement deemed a driver to be serving the company “strictly as an independent contractor, and not as an employee of FHD for any purpose.” According to the Internal Revenue Service, an employee is not an independent contractor if he or she performs services that can be controlled by an employer.

The take-it-or-leave it contract gave drivers very limited opportunities for negotiation. The only opportunities for negotiation were to negotiate:

  • The particular routes assigned to them.
  • One part of compensation — a supplementary payment to drivers who serviced routes where customer density and package volume were low.

 

Traditionally, the task defining the term “employee” has been assigned to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). However, the National Labor Relations Act does not cover workers acting as independent contractors.

Actual, Not Theoretical, Entrepreneurial Opportunities

The Board ruled the drivers were not independent contractors. It stated that an actual entrepreneurial opportunity is one which produces gains or losses. Most entrepreneurs pursue a venture to make a profit, but this wasn’t possible for the Hartford FHD drivers.

FedEx significantly restrained driver’s ability to have any characteristics of a business, such as advertising or serving multiple vendors. Specifically, any driver engaging in route sales had to choose FedEx approved buyers. Additionally, FedEx reserved the right unilaterally to change all routes at any time.

Citing a preceding opinion, the Board reaffirmed the principle, “if a company offers its workers entrepreneurial opportunities that they cannot realistically take, then that does not add any weight to the company’s claim that the workers are independent contractors.” C.C. Eastern, Inc v. NLRB, 60 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Only a small percentage of workers actually pursued the opportunity, demonstrating the activity was not a significant part of the working relationship. The mere fact that the employee’s contract permitted an activity deemed entrepreneurial was not sufficient to deny statutory employee status.

No Evidence to Show Drivers Ran A Business 

The NLRB considered whether enough evidence was presented to show that the drivers rendered services to FedEx as an independent business. The NLRB considered the following points to conclude that the drivers were not independent contractors:

  • Limitations on driver’s ability to work for other companies.
  • FedEx’s restrictions on important business decisions.
  • Insufficient evidence to show driver’s maintained a business presence.
  • Workers relied on FedEx’s infrastructure to operate.
  • Limited extent of driver’s control over the vehicles, equipment, sales, and compensation.

 

To serve the routes, van or trucks had to be purchased from approved vendors. The vehicles had to meet FedEx’s specifications, including a backing camera and FedEx logo branding.

Drivers’ Commitment to FedEx

Realistically, the drivers could not work for other companies. Drivers were committed to FedEx from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday. FedEx did not give drivers paid vacation or  holidays. However, FedEx offered a time-off program where approved drivers serviced the routes of permanent drivers while they were on vacation.

The agreement specifically stated the vehicle “shall be used by the driver exclusively for the carriage of the goods of FHD and for no other purpose.” Workers’ vehicles were specifically tailored for FedEx operation and had to mask the company logo before using vehicles for other reasons.

Union representatives for the drivers saw the reality behind FedEx’s actions, realizing they were offering the least amount of compensation for a large volume of time and efforts from drivers. The employer minimized the worker’s control over traditional factors including compensation, equipment, employment length, training and routes.

Extent of FedEx’s Control

FedEx exercised universal control over the driver’s day to day work. The employer could reconfigure all routes at any time. Workers’ were required to make their vehicles available most weekdays, follow configured routes, and deliver a set amount of packages each day.

The ability to engage in sales of their routes was deemed futile. Only two drivers in the Hartford terminal’s history, established in March 2000, had taken advantage of route sales. For single-route driver’s selling their route meant terminating their relationship with FedEx. Drivers with multiple routes covered all necessary expenses, including wages for the workers hired. At the time of the hearing only two routes were open.

Workers did not have any independence and lacked decision-making authority associated with an independent contractor.

Overall Decision

The Board concluded all relevant factors taken together, “weighed heavily in favor of employee status.”  With FedEx Home Delivery operating more than 500 terminals and 4,000 drivers nationwide, it is likely other driver’s will raise same or similar concerns.

FedEx Home Delivery and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 671, 361 N.L.R.B. No. 55 (Sept. 30, 2014), 

Posted in Blog, Employment

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

The proposed settlement reached nearly a year after the catastrophic Surfside building collapse along the South Flo[Read More...]
UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

The University of California system announced Tuesday it will pay nearly $375 million to more than 300 women who said they we[Read More...]
Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

We are all too acquainted with insurance coverage in our everyday lives. According to Investopedia, everyone should have[Read More...]
The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

The Rochester Catholic Diocese is offering a $147 million settlement to sex abuse survivors. This offer comes as a federal ba[Read More...]
Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

A jury in Pensacola, Fla., federal court on Friday ordered 3M to pay $77.5 million to a U.S. Army veteran who said he suffe[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.