Toronto cab company made worker a 'fall guy' to keep protesting drivers in line, says court
An Ontario court has awarded punitive damages for the “malicious and high-handed” manner in which a Toronto cab company fired one of its drivers.
Mohammad Chaudhry became a full-time driver for Beck Taxi in 2004. To work for Beck, Chaudhry was required to get his own car, paint it in the company colours and equip it with a pager, two-way radio, credit card machine and roof light. But Chaudhry was not an employee. Drivers pay the company $420 a month to participate in its dispatch service.
Beck gave Chaudhry a booklet, titled “Driver’s Solutions,” containing tips on how to work efficiently and profitably. It had a section on company rules and policies, and listed as an offence “booking off,” a process where a driver jumps the queue of waiting drivers at specific customer pick-up points.
Chaudhry testified he knew some drivers were breaking the rules but when he tried to have the company-appointed drivers’ committee look into it, he was ignored. Chaudhry had an issue with David Alie, a veteran of the drivers’ committee, who in Chaudhry’s opinion was particularly guilty of booking off. Chaudhry and five others drew up a letter complaining about Alie, which was sent to Beck’s president. It was signed by 116 drivers.
Chaudhry was to meet with Beck’s accounts manager about the matter, but on the day of the meeting Chaudhry left a message that he was stuck in traffic and asked that it be rescheduled.
The manager called him back 15 minutes later. He told him that what he was doing was vandalism, that the allegations against Alie were wrong and that Chaudhry was “no longer welcome in the Beck Taxi organization.”
Chaudhry filed an action against Beck, claiming breach of contract. Beck said the letter of complaint against Alie was false and inflammatory. It said Chaudhry’s request to reschedule the meeting was a deliberate attempt to avoid discussing it and, for that reason and because Chaudhry had not followed the proper channels in making his complaints, he was terminated.
In addition, the company argued drivers are merely subscribers to a dispatch system operated by Beck, and since they are not employees they are not entitled to notice.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted that Chaudhry got more than 100 drivers to sign the letter complaining about Alie. This, plus testimony from fellow drivers, was proof there was a large degree of truth to Chaudhry’s complaint. Ultimately the company fired Chaudhry because it felt he was a troublemaker and it would be better off without him, the court said.
There were enough elements of a master-and-servant relationship that Chaudhry could not be terminated without notice, said the court. Drivers have to paint their cars a certain way, carry certain equipment and are subject to specific rules set out in a handbook given to every driver. There was a sufficient degree of control exercised by the company over the drivers.
Chaudhry found work with another taxi company soon after he was fired from Beck, and the court ruled he hadn’t proven the damages he claimed. The court found, however, that he was entitled to exemplary damages.
Chaudhry had legitimate complaints. But Beck did not give him an opportunity to spell out his concerns. It said he hadn’t complained via the proper channels, when it had never made clear what those channels were.
The company had decided to make Chaudhry a “fall guy” to keep the other protesting drivers in line. This offended the court’s sense of decency, the judge said in awarding Chaudhry $7,500 plus costs.
For more information see:
• Chaudhry v. Beck Taxi Ltd., 2006 CarswellOnt 3471 (Ont. S.C.J.).
Mohammad Chaudhry became a full-time driver for Beck Taxi in 2004. To work for Beck, Chaudhry was required to get his own car, paint it in the company colours and equip it with a pager, two-way radio, credit card machine and roof light. But Chaudhry was not an employee. Drivers pay the company $420 a month to participate in its dispatch service.
Beck gave Chaudhry a booklet, titled “Driver’s Solutions,” containing tips on how to work efficiently and profitably. It had a section on company rules and policies, and listed as an offence “booking off,” a process where a driver jumps the queue of waiting drivers at specific customer pick-up points.
Chaudhry testified he knew some drivers were breaking the rules but when he tried to have the company-appointed drivers’ committee look into it, he was ignored. Chaudhry had an issue with David Alie, a veteran of the drivers’ committee, who in Chaudhry’s opinion was particularly guilty of booking off. Chaudhry and five others drew up a letter complaining about Alie, which was sent to Beck’s president. It was signed by 116 drivers.
Chaudhry was to meet with Beck’s accounts manager about the matter, but on the day of the meeting Chaudhry left a message that he was stuck in traffic and asked that it be rescheduled.
The manager called him back 15 minutes later. He told him that what he was doing was vandalism, that the allegations against Alie were wrong and that Chaudhry was “no longer welcome in the Beck Taxi organization.”
Chaudhry filed an action against Beck, claiming breach of contract. Beck said the letter of complaint against Alie was false and inflammatory. It said Chaudhry’s request to reschedule the meeting was a deliberate attempt to avoid discussing it and, for that reason and because Chaudhry had not followed the proper channels in making his complaints, he was terminated.
In addition, the company argued drivers are merely subscribers to a dispatch system operated by Beck, and since they are not employees they are not entitled to notice.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted that Chaudhry got more than 100 drivers to sign the letter complaining about Alie. This, plus testimony from fellow drivers, was proof there was a large degree of truth to Chaudhry’s complaint. Ultimately the company fired Chaudhry because it felt he was a troublemaker and it would be better off without him, the court said.
There were enough elements of a master-and-servant relationship that Chaudhry could not be terminated without notice, said the court. Drivers have to paint their cars a certain way, carry certain equipment and are subject to specific rules set out in a handbook given to every driver. There was a sufficient degree of control exercised by the company over the drivers.
Chaudhry found work with another taxi company soon after he was fired from Beck, and the court ruled he hadn’t proven the damages he claimed. The court found, however, that he was entitled to exemplary damages.
Chaudhry had legitimate complaints. But Beck did not give him an opportunity to spell out his concerns. It said he hadn’t complained via the proper channels, when it had never made clear what those channels were.
The company had decided to make Chaudhry a “fall guy” to keep the other protesting drivers in line. This offended the court’s sense of decency, the judge said in awarding Chaudhry $7,500 plus costs.
For more information see:
• Chaudhry v. Beck Taxi Ltd., 2006 CarswellOnt 3471 (Ont. S.C.J.).
