Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Express Premium Pay Elimination - What You Need to Know
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ricochet1a" data-source="post: 953876" data-attributes="member: 22880"><p>Still trying to get confirmation as to exactly why Express did what they did - when they did it and how they did it. </p><p></p><p>I'll step through the info that is available publically on this - without some form of inside knowledge, it is impossible to pin down exactly what is going on. </p><p></p><p>This is the link to the SEC 10-Q for FedEx (last year)</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/110318/FEDERAL-EXPRESS-CORP_10-Q/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Calibri'"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: #0000ff">http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/110318/FEDERAL-EXPRESS-CORP_10-Q/</span></span></span></a></p><p></p><p></p><p>The case is Bibo et al v. Federal Express Inc. (citation located on page 10 of the 10-Q).</p><p></p><p>Here is the relevant excerpt:</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><em><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Wage-and-Hour. </span></span></em><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock,” were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. The following describes the wage-and-hour matters that have been certified as class actions.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></span><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">In April 2009, in <em>Bibo v. FedEx Express</em>, a California federal court granted class certification, certifying several subclasses of our couriers in California from April 14, 2006 (the date of the settlement of the <em>Foster </em>class action) to the present. The plaintiffs allege that we violated California wage-and-hour laws after the date of the <em>Foster </em>settlement.In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock” and were not provided with required meal breaks or split-shift premiums. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has refused to accept a discretionary appeal of the class certification order at this time. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">This class certification ruling does not address whether we will ultimately be held liable. We have denied any liability and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these wage-and-hour lawsuits. Given the nature and status of these lawsuits,we cannot yet determine the amount or a reasonable range of potential loss, if any. However, we do not believe that any loss is probable in these lawsuits. </span></span></span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, this case was resolved last spring in FedEx's favor (at least that is what the legal journals state).</p><p></p><p>There is a whole mess of litigation going on in California now due to their split shift laws that protect employees from being called into work for an hour or so then sent home - keeping them from being "jerked around". The litigation isn't just with FedEx Express as a defendant, but with virtually every corporation that has variances with California law. </p><p></p><p>Another case that is relevant is Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular Case # B231142</p><p></p><p>A key point out of that case:</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>A “split shift” is “a work schedule, which is interrupted by non-paid non-working periods established by the employer, other than bona fide rest or meal periods.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 2(Q).) “When an employee works a split shift, one (1) hour's pay at the minimum wage shall be paid in addition to the minimum wage for that workday, except when the employee resides at the place of employment.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 4(C).)</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em>It looks like Express may be trying to proactively ward off further litigation by eliminating its current split shift scheme and getting ready to implement something that is compliant with California state law - POSSIBLY on a national basis to eliminate a host of headaches trying to comply with California law just with California based employees. </p><p></p><p><u>The important thing is that I can't find (nor anyone I've spoken with) any current class action litigation against Express concerning split shift pay. </u></p><p><u></u></p><p><u></u>I haven't done a complete search of litigation, but it appears at this point that Express is acting to ward off potential litigation. </p><p></p><p><u>If this is the case, then it would be reasonable to assume that once Express can come up with a system that will stand muster with California law, it will adopt some form of split shift compensation sometime in the future. </u></p><p><u></u></p><p>The puzzling thing is why did Express essentially lie about the reason for the sudden termination of the split shift pay system (to free up funds to give those in the bottom two quartiles a pay raise.... come on). It has all the characteristics of a knee jerk reaction to something coming around the corner towards Express. <span style="font-family: 'verdana'"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: #000000"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: #000000"></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ricochet1a, post: 953876, member: 22880"] Still trying to get confirmation as to exactly why Express did what they did - when they did it and how they did it. I'll step through the info that is available publically on this - without some form of inside knowledge, it is impossible to pin down exactly what is going on. This is the link to the SEC 10-Q for FedEx (last year) [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/110318/FEDERAL-EXPRESS-CORP_10-Q/"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/110318/FEDERAL-EXPRESS-CORP_10-Q/[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] The case is Bibo et al v. Federal Express Inc. (citation located on page 10 of the 10-Q). Here is the relevant excerpt: [SIZE=4][I][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Wage-and-Hour. [/FONT][/COLOR][/I][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock,” were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. The following describes the wage-and-hour matters that have been certified as class actions.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial] [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]In April 2009, in [I]Bibo v. FedEx Express[/I], a California federal court granted class certification, certifying several subclasses of our couriers in California from April 14, 2006 (the date of the settlement of the [I]Foster [/I]class action) to the present. The plaintiffs allege that we violated California wage-and-hour laws after the date of the [I]Foster [/I]settlement.In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock” and were not provided with required meal breaks or split-shift premiums. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has refused to accept a discretionary appeal of the class certification order at this time. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]This class certification ruling does not address whether we will ultimately be held liable. We have denied any liability and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these wage-and-hour lawsuits. Given the nature and status of these lawsuits,we cannot yet determine the amount or a reasonable range of potential loss, if any. However, we do not believe that any loss is probable in these lawsuits. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE] Now, this case was resolved last spring in FedEx's favor (at least that is what the legal journals state). There is a whole mess of litigation going on in California now due to their split shift laws that protect employees from being called into work for an hour or so then sent home - keeping them from being "jerked around". The litigation isn't just with FedEx Express as a defendant, but with virtually every corporation that has variances with California law. Another case that is relevant is Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular Case # B231142 A key point out of that case: [I]A “split shift” is “a work schedule, which is interrupted by non-paid non-working periods established by the employer, other than bona fide rest or meal periods.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 2(Q).) “When an employee works a split shift, one (1) hour's pay at the minimum wage shall be paid in addition to the minimum wage for that workday, except when the employee resides at the place of employment.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 4(C).) [/I]It looks like Express may be trying to proactively ward off further litigation by eliminating its current split shift scheme and getting ready to implement something that is compliant with California state law - POSSIBLY on a national basis to eliminate a host of headaches trying to comply with California law just with California based employees. [U]The important thing is that I can't find (nor anyone I've spoken with) any current class action litigation against Express concerning split shift pay. [/U]I haven't done a complete search of litigation, but it appears at this point that Express is acting to ward off potential litigation. [U]If this is the case, then it would be reasonable to assume that once Express can come up with a system that will stand muster with California law, it will adopt some form of split shift compensation sometime in the future. [/U] The puzzling thing is why did Express essentially lie about the reason for the sudden termination of the split shift pay system (to free up funds to give those in the bottom two quartiles a pay raise.... come on). It has all the characteristics of a knee jerk reaction to something coming around the corner towards Express. [FONT=verdana][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Express Premium Pay Elimination - What You Need to Know
Top