The Source for Trucking News, Opinions and Trucking Jobs | Finally

But it’s not enough. The "retailer" is never named in this article and the problem is widespread and not isolated to one "retailer".

SPECIAL REPORT: OOIDA to file lumping lawsuit

For decades truckers have been taking their lumps when it came to unloading their trailers at certain docks.

Now, in a lawsuit it intends to file next week, OOIDA is challenging what it contends are illegal lumping charges at the docks of a retail grocery chain – a chain whose lumping policies were already condemned by a federal circuit judge in 1998.

Simply put, OOIDA wants the federal court to order the retailer to stop what it calls illegal practices and pay back “the improper profit that the retailer realized by shifting costs to somebody that shouldn’t have them,” said Randy Herrick-Stare, the attorney from The Cullen Law Firm who is handling the case for OOIDA

One of the reasons drivers hate grocery warehouses is the system of lumpers. Some distribution centers are getting better while others aren’t.

It’s not pocket-change we’re talking about.

“If there are 1,000 deliveries a day and every delivery involves
improper lumping fees or improper shifting of the
lumping fees of $50, $60, $100, whatever that is, it’s easy to do the math and
you run up into two commas pretty quickly,” Herrick-Stare said.

At the heart of the case is the federal motor carrier law that states
receivers must bear the costs of unloading interstate freight if they require
that truckers be assisted in the unloading process. The law also prohibits
anyone from coercing or attempting to coerce interstate truckers to “unload …
or pay persons to unload” the freight they are hauling.

What they should be doing is making it illegal for the driver to load and unload. One of the ways warehouses get away with that is they have a rule that drivers can’t use their power equipment like power pallet jacks to unload their trucks unless they are certified by them. Drivers that want to unload themselves have to share a broken down piece of crap pallet jack. There’s a way around any rule the government tries to make.

Truckers Joseph Rajkovacz of Edgar, WI, and Carl Schaefer of Alpha, OH,
had both made deliveries to the grocer prior to March without difficulties.
Then the grocer instituted new policies requiring insurance coverages in excess
of federal requirements and requiring truckers without that insurance to accept
assistance from and pay for lumpers.

Rajkovacz lost several hours of time because he was required to wait
for lumpers to unload three pallets of cottage cheese. He was required to pay
the lumpers out of his own pocket and was not given any detention pay for being
delayed.

Schaefer was delayed from 2 a.m. to 10 a.m. in April when he tried to
deliver a full load of pet food to one of the grocer’s distribution centers. He
was also required to accept the assistance of lumpers and required to pay them
out of his own pocket. But he didn’t have the $75 cash that the lumping firm
was demanding and he had to drive to an automatic teller machine to get the
money before they would unload his truck.

These are not exaggerations. Too bad they don’t mention the name of the retailer.

“In terms of practicalities in the workplace and operations, we expect it will have some precedential value in the sense that retailers and businesses will sit up and take notice if they are going to be tagged for improper coercion of drivers,” he said.

“So, in a very practical way we expect this litigation will have some
beneficial effect in the marketplace beyond this specific case.”

We can only hope.