- 47 -
(4) Ms. Fiereck’s testimony that 10 to 15 percent of truck
drivers referred to TLC were rejected by TLC, thereby rejecting
petitioner’s assertion that TLC’s involvement in the hiring of
each driver-employee was limited to an advisory role; and (5) the
exclusive lease agreement that TLC entered into with each
trucking company client, which provided in pertinent part that
TLC had the sole and absolute authority to hire each driver-
employee.35
The evidence supporting a finding that TLC had the sole and
absolute authority to hire each driver-employee substantially
outweighed Ms. Schrupp’s questionable testimony that TLC
exercised only an advisory role in the hiring of each driver-
employee. Consequently, the Court did not rely on such testimony
of Ms. Schrupp.
Right To Assign Additional Projects to Each Driver-Employee
Petitioner asserts:
There is no evidence that TLC reassigned drivers while
they were working for the trucking companies. In fact,
the parties agreed that “[i]n practice, TLC did not
reassign a Driver once the Driver was assigned to a
Trucking Company without permission from the Trucking
Company.” * * * Moreover, respondent presented no
evidence that drivers were ever reassigned. Again, the
Opinion elevates the form of the Lease Agreement over
the substance of the actual relationship.
35As discussed above, petitioner failed to show in Transport
Labor I that the totality of the facts and circumstances sur-
rounding TLC, each driver-employee, and each trucking company
client was inconsistent with the exclusive lease agreement.
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011