 Tim Ables Trucking Company, LLC was established in 1988 and provides, among  other things, frac sand and cement transportation services to the oil and gas industry throughout the  State of Texas and New Mexico.2    To provide its services, Tim Ables employed (and continues to employ) numerous  hourly paid workers—including Plaintiff and the individuals that make up the putative class. While  exact job titles may differ, these employees were subjected to the same or similar illegal pay practices  for similar work in the oilfield.    Plaintiff Stickell worked for Tim Ables as a Sand Coordinator from approximately May  2017 until August 2018.     As a Sand Coordinator, Plaintiff Stickell was tasked with ensuring the required frac  sand was unloaded from the delivery trucks and then loaded into the blender for use as a proppant.    Specifically, Plaintiff assisted in getting trucks into position, inspected the sand that  had been delivered, and hooked up hoses to the trucks that delivered the sand.    Sand is a critical part of the hydraulic fracturing process.    Once sand is unloaded into the blender, it is then used in the well. As such, Sand  Coordinators are an integral part of the hydraulic fracturing crew.    Tim Ables paid Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members a straight hourly wage for all  hours worked.     Specifically, Plaintiff Stickell was paid $40.00 per hour worked but did not receive  overtime compensation at the required rate of time and one-half for all hours worked over forty (40)  each week.  2 https://www.timablestrucking.com.    Original Collective Action Complaint  Page 5    Although it is well-known that blue-collar oilfield workers like Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members are not exempt from overtime, Tim Ables did not pay Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members the additional overtime premium required by the FLSA for hours worked in  excess of forty (40) in a workweek.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ primary job duties included performing daily  checklists, assisting with the preparation of equipment, and performing other oilfield related functions  on various job sites.    Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members would conduct  their day-to-day activities within mandatory and designed parameters and in accordance with pre- determined operational plans created by Tim Ables and/or its clients.    Upon further information and belief, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ daily  and weekly activities were routine and largely governed by standardized plans, procedures, and  checklists created by Tim Ables and/or its clients.     Virtually every job function was pre-determined by Tim Ables and/or its clients,  including the tools to use at a job site, the schedule of work, and related work duties.     Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were prohibited from varying their job duties  outside of the predetermined parameters.     Moreover, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ job functions were primarily  routine and manual labor in nature, requiring little to no official training, much less a college education  or other advanced degree.    Indeed, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are blue-collar workers. They rely on  their hands, physical skills, and energy to perform manual and routine labor in the oilfield.     Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) include  managerial responsibilities or the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.  Original Collective Action Complaint  Page 6    Tim Ables determined the hours Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked.      Tim Ables set Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ pay and controlled the  number of hours they worked.    Tim Ables set all employment-related policies applicable to Plaintiff and the Putative  Class Members.     Tim Ables maintained control over pricing and marketing.     Tim Ables also chose equipment and product suppliers.    Tim Ables owned or controlled the equipment and supplies that Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members used to perform their work.    Tim Ables had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.     Tim Ables made all personnel and payroll decisions with respect to Plaintiff and the  Putative Class Members, including but not limited to, the decision to pay Plaintiff and the Putative  Class Members an hourly wage with no overtime pay.      Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not employ their own workers.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked exclusively for Tim Ables on a  permanent full-time basis.     Tim Ables, instead of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, paid operating  expenses like rent, payroll, marketing, insurance, and bills.     Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members relied on Tim Ables for their work. Plaintiff  and the Putative Class Members did not market any business or services of their own. Instead, Plaintiff  and the Putative Class Members worked the hours assigned by Tim Ables, performed duties assigned  by Tim Ables, worked on projects assigned by Tim Ables, and worked for the benefit of Tim Ables  and its customers.  Original Collective Action Complaint  Page 7    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members did not earn a profit based on any business  investment of their own. Rather, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ only earning opportunity  was based on the number of hours they were allowed to work, which was controlled by Tim Ables  and/or its customers.    Tim Ables improperly classified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as  independent contractors. The classification was improper because Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members were not in business for themselves. Instead, they were economically dependent upon Tim  Ables for their work.    Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members’ duties did not (and currently do not) include  managerial responsibilities or the exercise of independent discretion or judgment.    The FLSA mandates that overtime be paid at one and one-half times an employee’s  regular rate of pay.     Tim Ables denied Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime pay as a result of  a widely applicable, illegal pay practice. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked in  excess of forty (40) hours per week but never received overtime compensation.    Tim Ables applied this pay practice despite clear and controlling law that states that  the manual labor/technical, routine duties which were performed by Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members consisted of non-exempt work.    Accordingly, Tim Ables’ pay policies and practices blatantly violated (and continue to  violate) the FLSA.  V.   All previous paragraphs are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.    Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this collective claim is made on behalf of all those who  are (or were) similarly situated to Plaintiff.    Other similarly situated employees have been victimized by Tim Ables’ patterns,  practices, and policies, which are in willful violation of the FLSA.    The FLSA Collective Members are defined in Paragraph 57.    Tim Ables’ failure to pay any overtime compensation results from generally applicable  policies and practices and does not depend on the personal circumstances of the individual FLSA  Collective Members.  Original Collective Action Complaint  Page 11    Thus, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the FLSA Collective  Members.    The specific job titles or precise job requirements of the various FLSA Collective  Members does not prevent collective treatment.    All of the FLSA Collective Members—regardless of their specific job titles, precise job  requirements, rates of pay, or job locations—are entitled to be properly compensated for all hours  worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek.    Although the issues of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction  from the common nucleus of liability facts. Indeed, the FLSA Collective Members are blue-collar  oilfield workers entitled to overtime after forty (40) hours in a week.    Tim Ables employed a substantial number of similarly situated workers since August  9, 2015. Upon information and belief, these workers are geographically dispersed, residing and  working in locations across the United States. Because these workers do not have fixed work locations,  they may work in different states across the country in the course of a given year.    Absent a collective action, many members of the proposed FLSA collective likely will  not obtain redress of their injuries and Tim Ables will retain the proceeds of its rampant violations.    Moreover, individual litigation would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.  Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity among the claims  of the individual members of the classes and provide for judicial consistency.    Accordingly, the FLSA collective of similarly situated plaintiffs should be certified as  defined as in Paragraph 57 and notice should be promptly sent.  VI. 