arniedog

hi everyone, wonder if anyone can answer this question for me. i work for a trucking company in Cambridge Ontario and am based in Cambridge. i work on a certain contract which means that i either pick up loads from Cambridge or Woodstock and deliver anywhere in a 100 mile radius. my company has decided that its too expensive to run the trucks 35 mins to pick up loads, so they have told us our trucks are going to based in Woodstock and we have to drive to Woodstock in our own cars. as we are local drivers that means a return journey everyday. we have been offered no compensation and have been told basically tough, thats whats happening. for me personally it means i have to buy another car as my wife needs one too, it would cost me a minimum $100 a week for gas, thats without any other expenses i.e wear and tear on the vehicle. my contract states im based in cambridge. my question is , can they legally do this ? thanks in advance

neilg14

Hello, no idea of the legalities of it but from the trucking POV, Truck companies over here seem to have carte blanche on what they do regardless of what the contract says, especially if you are a TFW.
Quite honestly if I were you I'd move on to another company.
If you go on the trucking part of this forum you'll understand what I'm saying.

arniedog

Yeah I totally agree, nobody seems to give a damn. The resumes have already been sent out.

colchar

I don't see why they wouldn't legally be able to do this. The majority of people commute to their workplace and, essentially, that is all they are asking you to do. And people who commute to work aren't compensated for their commute so there would be no expectation for the company to compensate you.

SchnookoLoly

+1 to what colchar said. I work in Mississauga and have a colleague who lives in Waterloo who commutes into this office. She doesn't get paid any compensation for her 1.5h-each-way commute...

Dashie

I don't think it's the commute so much as the location. Contract says Cambridge, pick ups used to be split between there and Woodstock, now they're all being changed to Woodstock with no change in pay. Am I getting that right?

How do you currently work days when you have to get to Woodstock? I would think that if they were implementing a complete change of location beyond a certain distance it might be different. Their argument could likely be that you already travel to Woodstock part of the time as a commute so must be ok to do that.

dbd33

I think this case is more as if they moved the office to Waterloo causing you to have commute. The worker, of course, has no leg to stand on; they can move the base of operations to Montreal if they so choose.

Aviator

It depends on the contract and if it really is a contract or just list of responsibilities. If you are in a legally binding contract, they move you and it is considered unreasonable, you are not willing to move and leave their employment because of it, you may be entitled to claim EI, you may be entitled to severance, however you should talk to en employment lawyer to be sure before making any decisions.

Leaving because of a 35 minute commute may be seen as unreasonable on your part.

Have you thought of what you will tell other prospective employers when asked why you left? It may affect your employability.

From an economics perspective, what the company are doing seems to make good sense. Employee relations is another consideration.