• Report: #1111754

Complaint Review: Grocers Supply Co.

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Mon, December 30, 2013
  • Updated: Mon, December 30, 2013

  • Reported By: Sir Miles-A-Lot — houston Texas
Grocers Supply Co.
3131 E Holcombe Houston, Texas USA

Grocers Supply Co. GSC Grocers Houston Freedman Distributors Fiesta Quality Banana Parade brand dallas harlingen Reactive, Wrongful At-will Employer in Grocery & Restaurant Food Distribution Houston Texas

*Author of original report: I Affirm That I Did NOT Run A Red Light, And Then Some More

*Author of original report: Strange Rebuttal... Yours

*Consumer Comment: Your report has a few issues...

*Consumer Comment: Strange report.

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Had I decided in summer of 2013 to do this report--it would be very long as I fought Grocers Supply Company for a proper investigation; the police department for a proper accident report; gathered evidence of the scene; and finally the Texas Workforce Commission for unemployment insurance benefits.  I belive that I can manage to keep this no more than five paragraphs. My employment as a regional/local driver was terminated by this company while I worked for its subsidiary Freedman (Meat) Distributors.  My complaint(s) in the aftermath were not so much that I was dismissed but, rather, how I was dismissed in July 2013.

 

In early July 2013 I was assigned to the San Antonio route (because no one else with more tenure wanted it).  At a "T" intersection outside of San Antonio before noon, I stopped at a red light (per witness) then made a routine right turn westbound toward SA after checking roadway for competing traffic. [continued below]....

.....  I was then struck on my tractor's left side by a seventeen year old driver in a car belonging to a driving education school.  I spoke with one witness and professed no culpability with police nor my employer on the telephone.  I took multiple photographs of the early scene and forwarded them to Grocers Supply Co. risk management and safety departments and insurer.  I was lauded by the risk management representative for my submissions, and believed my company would fight for themselves--thus exonerating me. 

 

 Two weeks later I was called into the office to meet with the vice president of safety.  This seemed unusual but I felt he merely wanted more face-to-face discussion of the collision and wanted to talk about some of the photographs.  After some abrasive small talk about that most recent incident and other accidents and incidents, the VP placed the (investigative) erroneous police report in front of me then fired me.  The police report had many errors regarding the collision.  The most critical error was that the reporting officer in Schertz described the debris on the westbound side of the undivided highway.  I tried dilligently to contact the reporting officer and his department to bring this error to their attention.  Can't correct city hall I guess.  The (impact) debris was fully in the innermost lane of the eastbound side.  This was indicative that the inexperienced driver--right of way or wrong--attempted to enter oncoming traffic to pass me as I completed my right turn.  This physical evidence had many other implications in favor of GSC and casting further doubts unto the driving school's claim (if any).

 

Even after the termination I fought to get to the truth of what happened, what did the other driver and witnesses have to say about the collision.  I even travelled six hours round trip (on my own fuel) to the scene of the collision to gather more evidence and search for surveillance cameras.  I contacted the lady from risk management who divulged to me that parents of the teenager who was driving refused to allow her to speak to investigators.  So my employment termination was based almost solely on the police opinion and the fact that I was the other vehicle in the collision.  That is a pure travesty of internal investigation justice (even for at-will).  Grocers Suppy Company might have very well settled by now or given free money to the incompetent driving school's insurer.  A working person loses their job without the other party even having to give a statement.  Anyway, I could share volumes about this poor experience.  In summary: Grocers Supply is a typical cargo carrier that is out of touch with its personnel, equipment, costs, and internal affairs.   


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 12/30/2013 04:57 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Grocers-Supply-Co/Houston-Texas-77021/Grocers-Supply-Co-GSC-Grocers-Houston-Freedman-Distributors-Fiesta-Quality-Banana-Parade-1111754. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Grocers Supply Co.

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author 2Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Author of original report

I Affirm That I Did NOT Run A Red Light, And Then Some More

AUTHOR: Sir Miles-A-Lot - ()

"Just how many incidents are we talking about?"... "there might just be a history here providing more than enough justification for your firing..."

 The Grocers Supply Company (like many carriers) does not look at quantity of incidents & accidents but also the costs and severity of the event.  An incident is usually defined as an on-duty event less severe than an accident that may delay customer service or cost the carrier or customer money.  So a driver with a flat tire after a proper pre-trip inspection could be dealing with an incident.  Multiple incidents tend to raise a red flag.  An accident in trucking can be as little as $150.00 or as much as multi-millions in insurance costs.  Moreover, damage to other equipment or goods not even involving the tractor-trailer are counted as accidents in GSC's safety point system.  I will say that the last accident was the most severe in cost and damages.

 Grocers is an at-will employer that could have easily ditched me in the first week or kept me indefinitely.  However, if I am firing you for this reason, I am to be sure it is this reason.  I had six years tractor-trailer operation experience when I joined GSC.  Not much compared to a veteran trucker.  I drove approximately 100,000 miles all over the Lower 48 with a few breakdowns, no accidents in cities or highways (but one unpreventable where I was not responsible).  In the nearly four years that I was with my previous company I put over 410k miles on my sole assigned tractor and received at least two annual safety awards.  I have seen a lot.  I'm not some reckless cannonball who causes others to avoid collisions either. 

  I wanted Grocers to do a better investigation also because I still have the same driver's license.  So a lazy internal investigation leading to a judgment against me/GSC when the other party may be at fault can affect my personal automobile insurance rates; objectivity of my future dealings with law enforcement; and immediately: the next trucking company that I apply with.  The big picture, my friend, is that truck companies that are otherwise following safety guidelines, maintaining equipment, hiring the right personnel, etc. will continue to be bullied by lawyers and other peoples' insurers.

  "- So were you turning on Red? Was the "inexperienced" driver going through the Intersection on Green?"

Was I turning on red with a capital "R"?  Turning on red at that intersection is a legal turn because it was not posted otherwise.  To your most important point of whether or not the other party was on green can be responded to in about three ways.  I literally drew a blank as to my light color because it was a routine turn on a regular route, and that was the most severe collision I'd been involved in ever.  My first concern was life & limb of the other party because I was unscathed.  I initially feared they were attempting to pass me on the left for a right turn and caught themselves under my (left side) trailer.

1) My southbound light was red according to an independent witness; this, however, does not mean that the other party's westbound (or northbound) light was green because eastbound traffic is signaled by a protected left turn.  A thorough investigation would help bring that data to light.

2) I have no history of running red lights.  I look four different directions before and during a right-hand turn.  Could it be possible that the reason why I did not see the student driver travelling westbound toward me is that they were not on the road but across the street at the restaurant until I began turning?  Yes, it is possible.

 3) To my point, there were no skid marks nor skidding noise at the scene.  When I realized the debris sound I was hearing on my driver side was a very slow moving passenger car, I thought they were coming from north also because of how slow they were moving.  (There was only one right turn lane, the other lane was left only). 

 4) Even the independent witness did not affirm that the student driver had right of way: only that our southbound light {said witness was on my left} was red.  Witness did not notice the other car until a second or so before the collision.  I tried my best to be objective for the two weeks between the collision and the firing and subsequently.  This is why I tried so hard to find public and private surveillance cameras in the area.

 "- 'red herring' in that the exact location of the debris is instrumental in determining who is at fault."

 Not pivotal in determining fault--but the erroneous police report was instrumental in faulting me for the collision and casting doubt on my unanswered questions.  It took me an average of fourteen seconds to complete that turn, clearing the intersection in a tractor-trailer.  Maybe it was not the other vehicle driver's fault that they hit me... but why were they travelling at such a low rate of speed toward me in lieu of braking?  Why did I have no memory of any competing westbound traffic prior to my turn?  Why would a police department not be interested in correcting a seemingly minor detail of direction in a right-of-way collision that exceeded several thousand dollars in damages?  Any safety person, police officer, or insurance adjuster not asking those questions is a part of the problem in that whole big picture I was talking about.  If you the commenter are not asking or understanding these questions: you are also a part of the larger problem in accident investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

Strange Rebuttal... Yours

AUTHOR: Sir Miles-A-Lot - ()

The event/claim is only straightforward if it is perfectly legal (maybe), ethical (no), and proactive (no), to not only terminate the employee (me) but also accept responsibility--to not challenge the driving school (not just the student driver).  In our criminal justice system, defendants are allowed to face their accuser.  This is not so much the case in alleged traffic violations.  Traffic investigations are more subjective.  Had the car been my truck and the truck been their car hypothetically: damages would be much worse to the driving school vehicle, passenger injuries--and I would still be held liable for not stopping eighteen wheels fast enough in a 45mi-an-hour zone.  My forgetfulness was unhelpful--but is not culpability.

 "seems obvious that the road was not clear when you made your turn".  Not so much.  A red light for southbound does not mean necessarily a green light for westbound because eastbound gets a protected left.  The independent witness could not even place the passenger car until just before impact.  Basically my word against theirs.  Their word won.  Where'd the other car come from? is a question that should have been better investigated.  Instead, Grocers Supply would rather dump a faithful, safety-minded employee than get to the bottom of an expensive collision.

 "...Neither do you attempt to explain how the other vehicle was at fault".  The other vehicle is at fault because they hit me (close to left fuel tank).  I am the professional driver.  True.  Let me say for argument that your opinion is factual.  Diesel trucks with 53' trailers hauling ?12,000lbs of freight do not move that fast from stop to go.  Even if my light were green I would have to slow down to turn safely on a 90-degree.  I was perpendicular with about two westbound lanes when they struck me **debris is past that mark**.  Now reverse the roles again, but same vehicles with same people.  Do you honestly believe that the same police, same internal safety department would place all blame on the vehicle who (per your opinion) entered an unclear intersection.  No.  This is why companies and respondents should fight back.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

Your report has a few issues...

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

 After some abrasive small talk about that most recent incident and other accidents and incidents

- So this is not quite your first rodeo.  Just how many incidents are we talking about?  Were those reports also wrong where you weren't at fault for those either.  Sorry but it seems like there might just be a history here providing more than enough justification for your firing, even without this last incident.

 

This was indicative that the inexperienced driver--right of way or wrong--attempted to enter oncoming traffic to pass me as I completed my right turn

- So were you turning on Red?  Was the "inexperienced" driver going through the Intersection on Green?  Seems like a case could be made where you turned in front of the driver and they didn't have time to stop.

 

The most critical error was that the reporting officer in Schertz described the debris on the westbound side of the undivided highway.  I tried dilligently to contact the reportin officer and his department to bring this error to their attention.

- Honestly this seems like a "Red Herring" in that the exact location of the debris is instremental in determining who is at fault.

-

 

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Strange report.

AUTHOR: Crucible - ()

".  So my employment termination was based almost solely on the police opinion and the fact that I was the other vehicle in the collision. "

  Even after reading your side of the story, I'm stumped at how you come to this conclusion.   It seems pretty straightforward.

 "  At a "T" intersection outside of San Antonio before noon, I stopped at a red light (per witness) then made a routine right turn westbound toward SA after checking roadway for competing traffic.  I was then struck on my tractor's left side by a seventeen year old driver in a car belonging to a driving education school. "

  It's seems obvious that the road was not clear when you made your turn.   Where do you suppose the other car came from?

  Your report is chock full of things that have no bearing on the core issue.  That issue being that the other driver had a green light and you had a red light, which required you to yield the right of way to any oncoming traffic.   It does not appear (from your own statement) that you did that.   Neither do you attempt to explain how the other vehicle was at fault.

  Locations of debris or lack of a statement from the other driver doesn't seem relevant.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.