My initial problem
was a "Failed" rating which was given by a Jiffy Lube employee on
the annual inspection of my vehicle. This quickly escalated to
involving both the Dallas, Texas police as well as the Texas State
Police. Management has continued to escalate the problem by
denying that there are problems and not providing appropriate
seems like both local and corporate management attitude at Jiffy
Lube is that the individual consumer has very limited power to
influence others. In fact, the Internet has given the
individual consumer a significant amount of power. I originally created this website to publicize my
problems with Jiffy Lube. It has evolved to accommodate
comments and suggestions from people like you
My personal contact information:
P. O. Box 802771
Dallas, TX 75380
P. O. Box 2162
Lenoir, NC 28645
I. Texas State
Police Investigator's Report
The following is from the Investigator's
Report for the Texas Department of Public Safety [Texas State Police]. The
following people are identified in the report:
- Beaty = Jiffy Lube Vehicle Inspector
- Clayton = Texas State Police
- Cofer = Texas State Police
- Lemke = Customer [Victim]
- R. Tressler = Jiffy Lube Regional
- K. Tressler = Jiffy Lube Station Manager
Texas State Police
On (date), Cofer
arrived at Jiffy Lube #1954, station #1P28122, at 6190 Beltline Rd.,
Dallas, TX to investigate a customer complaint. On (original
date 10 days earlier), Lemke, the complainant, brought his (vehicle)
to Jiffy Lube #1954 for an inspection. Cofer had determined,
through the Vehicle Inspection Report, that the vehicle failed
because of its windshield wipers. Cofer also noticed that a
two-speed idle emissions test was performed on the vehicle instead
of the required ASM emissions test.
Shortly after Cofer
arrived at Jiffy Lube #1954, Lemke arrived driving the (vehicle)
that was inspected on (original date). Cofer along with
Regional Manager R. Tressler looked at the windshield wipers and
determined that they should have passed.
Lemke stated that
when Beaty, a certified inspector for Jiffy Lube #1954, failed his
windshield wipers and he refused to show him from the DPS Rules and
Regulations Manual why the wipers failed. According to Lemke,
whenever he asked Beaty to show him a written standard, Beaty told
him that he was the standard.
As the Station
Manager, K. Tressler, looked for the written reason why the wipers
failed, Beaty called the local police. Lemke had already paid
for the inspection [as per Texas State law] , even though the vehicle failed, and at no time became hostile or unruly. The police
arrived, could do nothing about the situation, and left.
Beaty was not present
on (date) so Cofer returned on (3 days later) with Clayton.
Beaty admitted that he was hasty in calling the police and that
Lemke had given him no reason to do so. When Clayton asked why
he called them, he replied that he did not know.
Cofer wrote Beaty a
Warning for failure to perform the applicable emissions test as
required and explained than another instance when he inputs false
information into the analyzer to by-pass the applicable emissions
test will result in a suspension of his license.
II. Response from Jiffy Lube
Jiffy Lube stations are
owned and operated by both franchisees and the franchisor: Royal Dutch
Petroleum / Shell Oil Corporation
The following is from a letter which was sent by Mr. C. E. "Ed" Martin, Vice
President, Lone Star Lubrication, a franchisee. This business has
several Jiffy Lube stations in Texas.
Lemke was told by R.
Tressler, Jiffy Lube Regional Manager, that he could expect an immediate
response from his boss. The following letter is dated 41 days later! This letter
was received only after a significant amount of time and energy was
expended to locate him and various attempts to contact Mr. Bandy, the owner of the
Lone Star Lubrication
Lone Star Lubrication, Inc.
3059 West 15th Street
Plano, Texas 75075
RE: Improper, Incorrect Safety
Inspection, Jiffy Lube #1954
Dear Mr. Lemke:
Thank you for bringing your concerns
to our attention. Thank you for taking the time to FAX to me a
portion of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) investigation
report that followed your complaint to DPS. As I understand
the situation, your complaint to the DPS followed an unpleasant
confrontation, between yourself and a safety inspector who worked in
our store on Preston road, on (date).
I was made aware that there had been an
inspection question and a situation arise, between one of our
inspectors and a customer and that there would be a DPS
investigation. This was reported to me at that time by my
regional manager, but I do not recall if your name was given to me
at that point. This is always our policy, and it is a matter
of law and DPS rule; should there be a question about a safety
inspection, any party, either the inspector or the customer or we
the station license holder can bring any inspection program concern
to the direct attention of the DPS.
DPS is the state agency directly charged
with enforcement of the statewide safety program and the emission
testing program in the counties where these programs are included
with the annual safety inspection program. We (Jiffy Lube) are
station license holders. However, during the inspection
process, the state certified inspectors "have the call". When
a licensed safety inspector is performing a safety inspection, he is
an agent of the state of Texas. The inspector has to follow
all the appropriate DPS rules, but we, as a station license holders,
are prohibited from interfering or influencing the decision of the
inspector performing the inspection.
I understand some of your issue,
concerning the initial failure of your vehicle due to a question
about windshield wipers. I understand the DPS investigation
report, both what is says and what it does not say. I know
that my regional manager moved the inspector to a different store,
where this individual can be watched more closely by a more
experienced manager. I am an inspector myself and I am also
licensed by the state of Texas (DPS), our Texas state EPA on matters
relating to both the safety program and the emissions program.
I can assure you I am sorry that you feel one of our inspectors did
not perform your inspection properly and may have responded
improperly to your questions. I might even agree with you that
his actions, on (date), specifically the inspector's call to Dallas
Police may have been inappropriate. Never the less, he is the
inspector and in this matter we do have our hands a bit tied, even
as his employer.
I do not know the complete truth of
this, nor do I think everyone involved will ever agree on what
actually transpired, on (date) and since then. However, what
specific resolution(s) to this would you suggest?
Please consider what you believe should
be our correct response to you to resolve this matter. Reduce
your proposal to writing, to avoid further misunderstanding.
Then send your proposal along to my direct attention, at the
letterhead address. By the time your proposal arrives in my
offices, I will have had time to complete my personal review of the
various investigations surrounding this matter. At that point
I hope to be able to provide to you some form of closure on what I
believe we both feel is a most distressing situation.
Very truly yours,
/s/ C. E. "Ed" Martin
III. Response From Victim
The following letter is from that which was
sent to the Jiffy Lube franchisee:
Subject: (date) Incident at Jiffy
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for your letter dated (date). You asked what
specific resolution(s) I would suggest. I have decided to
respond by wearing my 20 year-old management consulting hat.
The following seem to be some of the currently relevant issues and
Both the Texas Department of Public Safety Investigation Report
and your letter acknowledge enough details for a reasonable person
to conclude that your employee, Mr. Beaty, willfully and totally
without cause intended to intimidate me.
Investigation Report: "... When [Investigator] Clayton asked why
he called them [Dallas Police] he replied that he did not know.
..." It would be relevant to know whether there were any
sales programs or similar actions in effect at your store which
may have directly or indirectly influenced his actions.
Investigation Report: "... As the Manager, Kevin Tressler, looked
for the written reason why the wipers failed, Mr. Beaty called the
[Dallas] police. ..." Kevin Tressler was talking on the
phone with Roy Tressler when Mr. Beaty called the Dallas Police.
Directly or indirectly putting this authority into the hands of
Mr. Beaty does not seem appropriate in this circumstance.
Officer Cofer told me that this set of circumstances warranted his
writing a "Warning" as well as continued increased supervision of
Mr. Roy Tressler, Acting Regional Manager, assured me both on
(date) and (date) that someone from corporate headquarters would
contact me. I also left a telephone message for Mr. Bill
Bandy (President) asking him to call me on (date). It took
my intensive and disconcerting follow-up telephone call on (date)
to get your response. I have found that a prompt response is
preferable to hoping that this situation would disappear.
Rather than disappearing, it tends to fester.
The following physical trips were made; there were numerous
additional telephone calls.
(date) Jiffy Lube 1954. Initial vehicle inspection. Extra
time required, including meeting with Dallas Police.
(date) Bankson Nissan (local dealer), 13130 Preston Road,
Dallas: Service Department concluded that no replacement or repair
was needed to the windshield wipers.
(date) Texas Department of Public Safety, 350 IH 30 W,
Garland: Reviewed situation with officer who determined that
further investigation was appropriate.
(date) Return to Jiffy Lube 1954: Another vehicle inspection
and Texas Department of Public Safety review; discussion with Roy
It is possible that I will have to respond to future third-party
inquiries as a result of the Dallas Police report.
(This part of the
letter has not been reproduced because one of the purposes of this
web site is to obtain what you would consider an appropriate
solution. Part VI. identifies some alternatives for your
IV. Victim Follow-Up
A few weeks passed with no response of any
kind to the above letter from Lone Star Lubrication. Follow-up
telephone calls were not answered. A letter was then sent to the
franchisor. The following is from this letter:
Letter to Franchisor
Mr. Larry Birch
Jiffy Lube International Inc.
P. O. Box 4427
Houston, TX 77210
Subject: Jiffy Lube 1954
Dear Mr. Birch:
The purpose of this letter is to follow-up my prior communications
with the management at Lone Star Lubrication in Plano, TX. The
attached files describe the situation.
Per my letter of (date), I was hopeful of resolving this situation
without the involvement of others, like yourself.
Unfortunately, there has been no action on the part of Lone Star
Lubrication. Their response to both my letter and telephone
calls has been silence.
My first follow-up contact with their management was following the
incident described in the attachments. Mr. Martin's initial
comment was that their practice was not to respond to anything until
it is described in writing. Therefore, I immediately FAXed him
the Investigation Report by the Texas State Police. His abrupt
defensive move should have been more of a warning signal to me that
there was more of a problem than with just an employee!
Most of my business career included both working with managements of
Fortune 500 manufacturing firms as well as being part of those
managements. I have also founded and operated my own
businesses. The overwhelming majority would actively
investigate, try to equitable solve the problem and then benefit
from the experience. I know that to be the case with the Shell
Oil people [marketing] who I knew.
The small remainder frequently do down a path where the lack of
proper management actions sometimes ultimately costs much more than
could have otherwise been the case. In some situations, juries
have made very significant awards to help instill that inappropriate
management actions also have consequences.
Each additional step will be less of a token cost to each of us.
I am looking forward to learning how you suggest to equitable
resolve this situation so that I do not have to continue involving
Texas Department of Public Safety Report
Letter from "Ed" Martin
Letter to "Ed" Martin
Mr. Jim Perkins,
representing Mr. Birch, told me on
the telephone a couple of weeks later that Lone Star Lubrication refused
to communicate with me and felt that they had no liability in this
situation. Mr. Perkins also said that his employer and franchisor,
Shell Oil Company, had no authority or influence in this situation.
This website is the result of
the above situation. Adding Personal Experiences of others show
them that they are not alone. This will also help create a
critical mass which can create appropriate changes....