You are wrong here.... they VP's would treat you fair, just like they are doing in Calif and in the NW terminals That is if you are now working for them. They have always treated their employees fair. Conditions and compensation would remain fair even if the unions weren’t involved. A good and fair place to work.
There have been some employees that were not treated fairly
including some of the replacement workers.
October 26, 2006
Coburn v. Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc OR Hubel Employment Job Discrimination (Race)
January 12, 2004
Gibson v. Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc OR Brown Employment Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
4. Discrimination Against African-American and Female Temporary Employees
Many of the temporary replacement workers recruited by MSSC to work on the
strike are African-American drivers, a large number of whom are from the Southeastern
US. The panel received consistent reports, from multiple sources, that some of these
drivers have complained of receiving inferior work assignments on account of their race.
Such acts of discrimination violate not only Title VII, but also ILO Convention 111,
another “core” labor standard.51 In one particularly extreme case, one African-American
driver reportedly was terminated and sent home after he refused an order to load a
personal item belonging to a white driver onto the latter’s truck. Other African-American
drivers reportedly complained that they were being given dirtier and more physically
demanding delivery assignments than were their white counterparts.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, a group of five African-American female
drivers who were recruited by MSSC to operate tractor-trailers, were reassigned from
Auburn to Portland, where they were assigned to drive passenger vans transporting other
replacement workers instead of driving trucks. These African-American women – who
were the only African-American women drivers at the Auburn facility -- all had been
originally hired as truck drivers.
Although the women reportedly did not receive a cut in pay, the transfer and
reassignment was clearly a demotion. Driving a passenger van is a less prestigious job
than driving a tractor-trailer. The reassignment meant that these African-American
women would not be entrusted with driving Oak Harbor equipment, handling Oak Harbor
freight, or interacting with Oak Harbor customers -- and, moreover, that no African-
American woman would be performing these tasks for the company at the struck
50 See Idaho Code Ann. § 45-613; Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.355; Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.100.
51 See
ILOLEX: English display cgi.
18
terminals the strike. The incident is consistent with a broader pattern noted by multiple
observers, that as black temporary drivers have been dismissed and sent home and the
company has hired white drivers as permanent replacements, the driver workforce at Oak
Harbor during the strike has become steadily more white.
Oak Harbor, again, claims to have no knowledge of these particular incidents, and
maintains that the company operates on a non-discriminatory basis. The company
acknowledges that it historically has had very few black or women drivers, though it
claims this has been a product of the demographics of the available pool of licensed and
qualified applicants rather than of discriminatory intent on the company’s part. Oak
Harbor’s assertions are belied, however, by information received from longtime
employees concerning the company’s treatment of female and minority drivers.
Longtime employees indicate that the company has employed no more than four
African –Americans and four women as drivers in its Pacific Northwest operations over
the past ten years, in a company whose total workforce of 720 drivers. Historically,
longtime African-American employees report, the company has tended to assign black
drivers to dirtier and more physically strenuous deliveries over their white counterparts.
This past record of disparate treatment appears to exist in regard to women drivers
as well. It has been reported that in previous years some Oak Harbor managers made
comments to the effect that truck-driving was not an appropriate job for women. More
recently, the company has become the subject of a charge now pending with the EEOC
and the Washington State Human Rights Commission that concerns an incident in 2007
where one of the company’s only female drivers was physically grabbed by a male
manager for attempting to leave a company meeting; and the subsequent termination of
the driver on what were, reportedly, pretextual grounds.52 Oak Harbor denies that the
termination was retaliatory, states that it hired an outside investigator to look into the
incident, and reports that it disciplined the manager involved – though he continues to
serve in the same position at the company.
Given this context, it is all the more important that Oak Harbor management not
allow the treatment of minority and female temporary workers during the strike to
reinforce the impression that the company currently pursues discriminatory practices.
This is the case regardless of whether it is Oak Harbor or MSSC whose managers have
been responsible for the disparate treatment of temporary replacement employees that has
been reported during the strike. Under US employment discrimination laws, both a
staffing company and its client can face potential liability if a temporary employee
performing work for the client is discriminated against on account of race or gender.53
From the standpoint of ethical business practices, Oak Harbor, as the company which
hired MSSC to recruit and manage this temporary workforce, has a special responsibility
to ensure that such discriminatory conduct is immediately corrected and that no
recurrences of it are permitted.
52 Charge of Discrimination Presented to EEOC and Wash. State Human Rights Comm’n, Charge No. 551-
2008-02246 (Sept. 22, 2008) (copy on file with ILRF).
53 See, supra, at 15 and n. 33.
19
5. Oak Harbor’s Position on the Treatment of Temporary Employees
Oak Harbor Labor Relations Director Braun has stated that the company has
received no complaints of wage violations, discrimination, or retaliation from MSSC
employees working on the strike. Braun has indicated that the company is willing to
investigate any such claims that are brought to its attention by a worker. One reason this
may not have not happened, however, may be that drivers reasonably fear that MSSC will
terminate and send them home if they raise any of these issues. While working during the
strike, these drivers are dependent upon MSSC for not only employment and pay, but
also their lodging and eventual transportation home. It is not surprising that allegations
of non-payment of wages and retaliation for complaints about unpaid wages should
surface after a replacement worker is dismissed and sent home.
When a temporary staffing company fails to pay its temporary workers legallyowed
wages, legal liability can extend past the staffing company itself to the firm for
which the work was performed, if the latter is considered a “joint employer.”54 Without
stating a legal conclusion regarding Oak Harbor’s status as a joint employer of the
temporary replacement employees in this strike, it is worth noting that state laws may
provide for liability for unpaid wages on this basis.55 As a matter of both business ethics
and legal prudence, Oak Harbor must take a proactive approach to the issue of MSSC’s
treatment of these temporary employees.