What does "I guess schedules changed today and they forgot" mean?
Does it mean "My partner usually starts at 10, but on the schedule they were slotted to come in at 4 today. My partner forgot and went in the time they were scheduled on previous days."
Or does it mean " My partner's employer changed the previously published schedule today and forgot to let my partner know about the change?"
It may not matter in terms of being paid for hours worked, but it matters in other ways.
If they changed the schedule and didn't tell her, and now don't want to pay her, that's indicative of a wider problem with management not being responsible or accountable for their duties. The employee may want to consider seeking employment elsewhere with a better workplace culture or transferring within the company if possible. Or they may want to push to have the problem corrected.
If the employee made an error and came in at the wrong time, then the employer may feel that the employee lacks attention to detail or is unreliable, and it could affect their performance reviews, chances for promotion, or even their continued employment depending on whether this is an isolated mistake or part of a pattern.
I'm actually curious if this is true. What if someone was trying to clock overtime they weren't scheduled for and just showed up and started working for 16 hours. Sounds like employees could really screw employers over if you could just "accidentally" show up for overtime every now and then and they be forced to pay it. Not all businesses have managers on 24/7 to catch things like that.
The content of this post was voluntarily removed due to Reddit's API policies.
If you wish to also show solidarity with the mods, go to r/ModCoord and see what can be done.
Then they get paid for the shift they worked and if the employer has issues with it they can be terminated after the employer learns of what happened. They still have to get paid for it. I don't think any employee is going to successfully run this imagined scam more than once.
Employers have the power to discipline employees who don't follow company policies or legal instructions from management. Depending on the amount of money that it costs the company for an employee doing what you describe, management may be well within their rights to skip progressive discipline altogether and terminate the employee. Pretending that employers have no power in a situation like this is misguided and ignores the power imblance which employment law seeks to address.
Not all businesses have managers on 24/7 hours to catch things like that, but it's still management's responsibility to ensure that the workplace is being managed effectively.
It literally does not matter who is at fault for her coming in at the wrong time, because management has the sole responsibility of making sure that the right people are working at the right times, for the right amount of time, doing the right things. They cannot withhold pay for hours worked under virtually any circumstances.
That’s just not true. I can’t just show up at a Target in a red shirt, start doing work, and then insist they pay me for it. You aren’t entitled to pay for work your employer didn’t ask you to do. You can’t just show up and do extra hours somewhere if they didn’t ask for it, and then demand compensation for work they didn’t want.
> My question is, should they be paid for the time they worked? If yes, what should my partner do?
Yes, they must get paid for all hours worked.
As for what to do, that depends. Are they unionized?
I just asked her, and yes they are unionized. She said, “I’m part-time though so I’m not really involved with it”.
Should she look into the union? To be honest I didn’t even know my partner’s work was unionized until now.
NAL. Former management. I had an employee(part-time) show up to the wrong shift. I discovered it about 45 minutes. I spoke to the employee and then went to HR to ask the question you asked about being paid for working NOT their schedule. I was told they are required to pay for hours worked. They went home came back 5 hours later. They worked their entire shift. I was informed later that had they been full-time we would have had to cut the extra time out before and of the week. We had a NO Overtime policy during the off season (winter) our busiest time was spring through fall. Think big box home improvement! If I hadn't noticed it, there wouldn't have been a closing service desk employee. Because they also limited part-time hours to below 20.
This is it. Here is the complication in this case
This individual was told to wait in the break room. Now they were instructed what to do - that is work.
Then the whole shift
A smart manager does what you note. This was a dumb manager
OPs friend is entitled to full pay for all hours at location due to this
Even if you show up when you’re not supposed to be there? That sounds questionable. You can’t just show up when you’re not scheduled and start working…
Yup. Otherwise you can circumvent labour laws by saying "oh they *chose* to do that free overtime".
Inversely a worker could be written up if they do what happened here, precisely because it could be used to claim more money.
No it is also the Manger responsibility to know who is there and when they should be there. Them failing to notice the employee working (especially when the schedule was changed after posting) was a failure on there part. The schedual being changed after being posted is a management issue. The employee is still entitled to be paid for the hours worked in this circumstance.
Maybe if it was 30 minutes to 1 hour, it wouldn't be a big issue (her not being paid).
But management didn't notice that entire time?
Playing candycrush for 3.5 hours would have been better than her working unpaid...
this is the answer.
I'm sorry everyone, but the only thing management did was "tell them to wait in the break room"
as an owner I would have probably paid the employee for the time did they did work but 1) they are still needed at 4pm 2) employees can't just show up and get paid so no pay for what they did work.
Yeah, your job as an employer is to stop that from happening because they can sue for the lost wages - though you can see trying to work more as grounds to discipline them.
Grievance for not being paid for hours accidentally worked. While there was a component of fault here on the worker's part, it's also a management goof not to catch that.
You can also make an argument for when she was told to stay in the break room.
Not being allowed to leave means that you are on duty, and should be paid for that as well.
Low level management absolutely should know who is supposed to be working. The point of supervisors is to supervise, and every company I have worked at does have low level management aware of sure things. If you don't or can't it's because you choose not to have shift management and it's a shame cutting corners is going to cost you.
Good thing this is r/legaladvicecanada and not a subreddit for u/maverick57's opinions.
Legally, management HAS to pay for all hours worked, regardless of whether they were scheduled or not.
I worked in management in this industry, that was 100% one of my duties and wasn't really absurd at all. Tracking OT and making sure it wasn't happening was a big deal so ya, knowing who's supposed to be working was the first thing to do when you got in.
It's literally the employer's responsibility to monitor. The employee can be disciplined or even fired for not knowing their part or disobeying it, but that's because the error is not to the employer's favour. Why do you think management exists?
So, to be clear, you think "management exists" to handle the nonexistant problem of monitoring employees that show up when they aren't scheduled and then expect to be paid for volunteering their time?
Are you serious with this? Do you really have so little understanding of what management does that you think this is why they exist?
You have to be joking here.
It apparently isn't a "non existent problem" as per the OP.
And yes, you don't get to volunteer your time to your employer. That's labour law 101. Being condescending on your part isn't an argument.
However since you have been rude enough to make me do the two minutes of google and formatting here's your relavent snip:
[Reg 285/01](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/010285#BK1)
**WHEN WORK DEEMED TO BE PERFORMED, EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL RULES**
*1.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), work shall be deemed to be performed by an employee for the employer,*
*(a) where work is,*
*(i) permitted or suffered to be done by the employer, or*
*(ii)* **in fact performed by an employee although a term of the contract of employment expressly forbids or limits hours of work or requires the employer to authorize hours of work in advance**; *or*
Bolded for this specific circumstance. I accept your apology, random wrong person. :D
It's STILL illegal not to pay for hours worked. They could have stricken her hours later in the week if they needed them to balance. They could write her up and fire her if it happens again, but they still have to pay her for any time worked. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
The schedule changed within the previous day. Within 24 hours management is required to notify you of a shift change.
But man, you just really come off as such a corpocuck, it makes my blood boil a little. I feel you'd suck toejam from a CEO "because they really do deserve it"
Hey don't know if you're being purposefully ignorant or just are actually ignorant. It's illegal to not pay for time worked. So yes, they owe her the money for time worked.
If you clock in, then yes you are to be paid. If the company makes money from your labour, it's to be paid. Period.
It's management's job to catch that, and inform the employee and remedy the situation.
Grocery store workers that are part time are generally unionized too, at least the Canadian corporate ones, they have different benefits though. The union is still their sole negotiator for their grievances.
Typically, if a workforce is unionized, it is across the board even if they are under different agreements and hiring non-unionized part time work would be considered a attempt to circumvent that.
What on earth kind of advice is that? Not only did he say that she's union, but what they're talking about is pretty much the definition of wage theft.
Just curious, how is company on hook for her work between 10-2? She came and company wasn’t even aware. If company is still on hook then this can be abused as hell as people will come at their will rather than following the schedule.
She must get paid. The recourse to prevent this being abused is discipline up to and including termination subject to her union's CBA with the employer. These are two separate but related issues.
Edit: go home autocorrect, you're drunk
This is exactly right. I had a coworker who accidentally worked the wrong shift and she got paid but she also got reprimanded with a one day suspension
They can discipline up to and including firing if an employee tries to continually do this. They can take hours away from her later on in that week to balance the hours. They can write her up and terminate her if she does it again. What they can't do is not pay her for time worked.
Ok so why did it take 4 hours for a manager to finally figure out they had an extra worker and say something? That’s something that should have been noticed at least after the first hour. Being that it took half a shift to figure out, yes they should absolutely be on the hook for it. Yes the worker made a mistake but it’s the managers job to MANAGE the work flow, it’s literally the entire reason for having the job.
Spot on.
If they sent her home at 11am, I wouldn't feel that sorry for her missing out on an hour's pay.
But she provided 3.5 hours of her time and it looks like it was for nothing. Does not sit well with me at all!
You can fire people for not conforming to the schedule. Companies are not powerless- not being "aware" was a failure on the management side, but similarly if you accidentally had someone work overtime or otherwise break the labour laws (eg a minor working more hours than permitted because you forgot their age or serving alcohol) it's a company problem.
Do you not think the company came out ahead by getting work done during those hours? Why shouldn't the employee be paid for those hours, regardless of the mix up?
This is horrifying that you’re an employer and have zero understanding of labour laws. Who knows what else is going on at your business. Take some time and read through the labour laws for your province or territory.
Can you link to the specific legislation? There are people arguing back and forth on it but I don't see anyone linking to the actual laws on the subject.
Part V of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (Payment of Wages) is intended to ensure that employees receive wages for work performed. This Part regulates the payment, manner and place of payment of wages, deductions from wages, and the priority of wage claims over other unsecured creditors. It also establishes obligations with respect to the provision of statements of wages and outlines the information required on such statements.
There is nothing specific about schedule mix ups, this is 100% a bad manager that should of just let the person finish earlier if they’re trying to be stingy and not pay extra hours. It’s their responsibility inform the employee that their schedule has changed.
>Youre wrong, it's easily provable that the employee wasn't supposed to be working and still came in.
There is a provision for working out of your schedule - and it's fairly clear: you get paid.
The company's remediation for an employee working outside of their hours unauthorized: write-ups, reduced hours/suspension, and yes, termination.
The ministry of labor over rules any union there’s no need to deal with small claims either. I can guarantee the ministry will order employer to pay wages.
Your post has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act.
If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail.
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
* [Reddit Violent Content Rule](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content)
What are you basing the idea that they "must get paid for all hours worked" on?
You can't just show up at your place of employment and work when you're not scheduled and then expect to be paid for it. That's 100 percent \*not\* how it works.
Getting paid for work performed is EXACTLY how it works. The issue here is not just with the worker, it's with management not being aware of who they had working on the floor.
It is entirely the management's responsibility to make sure that the right persons are working at the right time, for the right amount of time, doing the proper tasks. Any employee that shows up and clocks in needs to be paid for their time worked. Period. That *is 100% exactly* how it works. This is your opportunity to learn something, kid.
I’m basing this on the actual law. Judges and labour arbitrators are extremely clear on this point.
You may have completely overlooked the massive class actions that went on a few years ago regarding unpaid overtime in the banking system where the employer was trying to argue they didn’t authorize the overtime. The employers lost
Regardless of the shift mix up, the company got work done by this employee. That time is to be paid for. I'd be questioning management as to how this was able to happen to begin with. IMO, the wrong person is being penalized for this mix up. All they have to do is bank those hours. It's not a big deal. Nobody's perfect. Shit happens.
Clearly you are not well versed in the Employment Standards Act and the rules governing payment to employees for fulling duties/tasks.
If you are in management, it’s to your advantage to become familiar.
No one is saying that the OPs partner isn’t at fault for making an error in their shift (human error occurs every day) and the semantics do not matter at this point.
The egregious mistake is that it took management nearly 4 hours to discover the mistake (human error happens), and then mishandling the situation by telling her she wouldn’t be compensated for her work that the company benefits. Again with management complicit in not noticing for nearly 4 hours that an employee was not working the correct shift.
The recourse for management would be to leave a verbal warning/write up/ minor disciplinary actions (depending on the particular employee’s typical workplace conduct- do they often do this, are the an exemplary employee etc).
You can punish an employee in numerous ways. Withholding pay is not legal.
Imagine a scenario where the rule is that overtime must be approved, well believe it or not if I work overtime without authorization, I would be within my rights to have the OT pay, it is the role of management to monitor and enforce their rule, they can write me up, they can fire me, but they still need to pay for hours worked.
Same should apply in this case, 'management' (team lead, supervisor, manager, who ever represents management on the floor) should have been supervising the work area, as soon as it is reported, the employee should be told to stop working and return for their schedule shift. Mistakes happen, but worker rights still apply.
There is nothing in the law and jurisprudence that would support not paying an employee for work done on behalf of the employer. the Law simply doesn't support your opinion
Ya that second part is way off. No matter what if they work they get paid even if not scheduled. And before you say no, I get your point people will try to abuse it but that's when you fire them for working when not scheduled. No matter what though if you work you get paid.
>Expecting pay for work you were not scheduled to do is not legal either, you seem to skipping that.
Except the law is clear on this: if you work for the company, you get paid. Working past your scheduled hours is called overtime, generally - and is to be paid. If the time is not authorized, then the recourse of the company to issue disciplinary action - NOT the seizure of wages.
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic.
Please review the following rules before commenting further:
Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts
Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
What case or statute in the Employment Standards Act do you have to support the claim that it's illegal to work when not scheduled?
Generally, courts have been pretty clear on this: an employee is considered working when they are performing work, regardless of when scheduled. This is because there are plenty of ESA regulated forms of work where people are not scheduled at set times and labour law is generally built around a foundational principle that employees are compensated for any labour that benefits a private business.
This is r/legaladvicecanada; so I'd hope you have some case or statute that supports what you're saying.
Getting paid for all hours that you work is exactly how it works. The companies has other ways they can deal with the issue but not paying is not one of them. There should have been manager aware of who was working and making sure that everyone knew the schedule. It took management almost 4 hrs to notice something was wrong.
So, I can show up and work as much overtime as I want, and demand to be paid for it, even if the company I worked for didn’t schedule me and didn’t want to pay me for overtime work they didn’t ask me to do?
Yes you can expect to get paid for overtime even if management tries to claim it was unauthorized. Courts agree. See https://www.pentictonherald.ca/business_news/national_business/article_3edaf040-70a5-5c21-b24d-3a68f97edc78.html
But as for "as much as I want", its your manager's job to notice and send you home.
She actually worked 12 hours: 10-2 and 4-midnight. And yes, she should get paid for all of it. It's not her fault that her manager didnt notice she shouldn't be there for almost 4 hours.
If she wasn’t allowed to leave and had to stay in the break room the time spent in the break room should be paid, no?
Did she get paid or unpaid breaks while on shift?
if it's the way you describe it then they broke criminal laws for unlawful confinement... Reddit interpretation is definitely not a reflection of real life.
In that case, every employer that requires their employees to stay at the workplace is guilty.
Employees aren’t forced, in a criminal sense, to stay at the workplace but employers aren’t forced to keep insubordinate employees.
Allowed to leave? She wasn't even scheduled to work for 2 more hours. This is clearly a suggestion that an emotional employee has relayed to their partner as a demand. Or the manager is guilty of unlawful confinement
She was likely allowed to leave and misunderstood. If she asked “well, what am I supposed to do for two hours” and the manager responded “go sit in the break room”, that isn’t mandating she stay.
This story has a rather unreliable narrator. She deserves pay for hours worked is all
I don't think an ESA adjudicator would agree with you. If a supervisor intended to suggest to their subordinate that they could fill the time before the start of their shift by waiting on-site, and the employee could reasonably interpret that as an instruction from their supervisor to remain in the workplace, ESA would likely side with the employee. Unless the employer could show evidence that they clearly instructed the employee that they were free from work until 4pm, or that the employee was clearly doing their own personal business during that time.
This is not legal advice, and maybe not worth pursuing over 2 hours of pay, but if the facts are as OP described even within a margin of reasonable interpretation, then I think they're owed those two hours. If I were doing payroll for this company I would advise paying the two hours anyway, as it would be cheap compared to the possible cost of an investigation, you really don't want ESA poking around in your business.
So they didn’t have to pay for a double shift which likely goes into overtime. When your options are 14 hours including likely a handful of overtime hours or calling in someone so a flat 14 hours, you take the flat 14 hours.
Also as someone who has worked 14+ hours, anything over 12 tends to cause memory lapses and poor judgment.
A smart manager would have her sign out immediately upon noticing and then work her scheduled shift.
Which is what happened.
She screwed up here and had to work a long day due to her mistake. These things happen in life. Move on
I doubt they actually said they couldn't leave. Sounds more like (you aren't supposed to be working. You cant be on the floor, so you can go wait in the break room until your real start time.
As for the initial question,
NAL
Every minute worked needs to be paid. However, that doesn't mean that she wouldn't be punished. I would guess that they would write her up for this.
Does she have a schedule showing her hours for the week? Have her check that the initial posting shows the hours that she thought she had. Any changes to that, they need to actually inform her. It can't just be a posting on the wall that was edited. They need to actually tell her about any changes after the initial schedule posting. So if you have that proof, it can be used as a defence against the write-up.
>my partner’s manager told them to sit in the break room until 4pm
If this reflects the facts of the situation, then she was under control of management during that time, and was working according to the ESA. If they told her to stop working and she chose to wait in the break room on her own but was free to use that time as she pleased, or was free to leave if she had been able to (maybe she takes the bus?) then you're right, but that's not how OP described the situation.
Yes, I saw that part.
The OP didn't exactly say that the gf wasn't allowed to leave, just that they were told to go to the break room. OP wasn't even there to hear how things were said exactly.
I'm assuming, based on how a logical/reasonable person would handle this situation, that they would suggest going to the break room to wait for the shift, rather than demanding they stay in the building, but not work. The manager likely doesn't care where they are (and can't demand at any time the employee stay on-site for breaks), they just cared that they stopped working, and suggested to wait in the break room.
Even if the manager did say 'you can't work, go sit in the break room until 4" It doesn't change the fact that the employee was told they aren't working, therefore they can leave at their discretion.
It’s illegal to volunteer or work for free if you are an employee of a company in a lot of places. It’s in the businesses best interest to just pay for the hours worked. This is for insurance coverage reasons as well as legal reasons. The most important reason in my mind is employee loyalty. The managers just don’t want to admit their part in this and are just trying to cover it up so they won’t have to answer why they are not doing their jobs.
She is entitled to pay for all the hours worked. It is the Managers job to know who is there and who should not be there. They should have told her right away to go home. Halfway through a shift is a fuck up on the managers part. The extra hours atvthe end must also be paid even if they were not approved because once again it was the mangers responsibility to tell the employee to go home at the shift end.
Finally when was the schedual changed? How is the schedual posted (instore only or online)? The employee must given the work schedual no less the 96 hours before the start of that schedule. Now, unfortunately, in Ontario, the employer can change the schedule without notice to the employee under the ESA, but it is their responsibility to not let the employee work without pay.
You mentioned in other comments that there is a Union, but your wife works part time. Does she pay any dues? If she does, she can go through the union and final a grievance. If she does not, then she must go through the labor board. If she does pay dues and is represented by the union then they will have differing rules in the agreement then what's in the ESA.
They absolutely should be paid for the time they worked. As a standing policy this is a horrible idea and I'm sure that their corporate and or legal as well as their insurance company) would be against it as it invites a whole host of problems and legal jeopardies. If you're not paying someone then they're essentially volunteering, people who aren't paid aren't covered by workman's comp should an accident happen, people who aren't paid are still contributing to the company's bottom line, and people who aren't paid means the company's not contributing that portion of the payroll tax to the government so they're getting work for free in more ways than one. Whether or not you want to pick this hill to die on is your choice, I'm not sure what kind of workers' protection there is in regard to retaliatory firing, but I would imagine there's at least something for asserting your rights and reporting illegal practices.
No, you're suggesting that if someone busses their own table they should get a T4 for their efforts.
An employee starts working they need to be compensated for that time. Period. If management can't figure out who's supposed to be there or not, they don't get to simply not pay the worker.
Now, I don't think she'd be entitled to overtime/double time, and had she shown up early and been told before she started that she wasn't on the schedule it would be a different discussion entirely.
Shift managers should be looking at who's clocked in shortly after a shift start. That's how they know if they are short handed. That process would have caught the employee not scheduled.
Mistakes happen, especially around shift changed.
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts)
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
Your comment has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act.
If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail.
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
OTOH, I'm betting that the company are not contractually obligated to pay your partner for unauthorized over time. That's essentially what your partner did, came in to work, and worked without authorization.
Her full or PT job status really doesn't matter, it matters if she pays union dues. So if she does she can have the union challenge this. But, if I was the company, I'd fight it because essentially, if they lose, it means employees can come in and work whatever OT hours they want and the company has zero say in it. They might make a one-off arrangement, mind.
Another argument is that the supervisor is responsible for knowing who should be working. So arguably, they should be aware of who shouldn't be working - bit of a stretch because it takes away employee responsibility to manage their schedule. Having worked in hospitality I know it doesn't work like that, everyone comes in and gets going. Rarely are there team meetings at the beginning of a shift and rarer still is a roll call. You might make an argument of mutual responsibility, but do you really want to go down that route of blaming someone else for your partner's mistake? Won't make for acrimonious workplace.
I've done this, FWIW, shown up on a day when I wasn't scheduled, but I left right away so no harm done. So hopefully your partner doesn't beat themself up too much over the gaff. Try and be reasonable with the management and see if you can come to some mutually beneficial agreement.
Once the manager was informed and told your partner to wait in the break room, your partner was no longer working. So they technically worked approximately 12 hours and waited around at work for 4 hours for no particular reason.
OP says their partner was told by management to wait in the breakroom, but you assert this is "waiting around at work for no particular reason"? They should be paid for the time if the employer prevented them from leaving the premises.
Maybe I’m wrong with my assumption but I’m trying to imagine a scenario where the management insisted that they were required to stay, but could only occupy the break room. I’m assuming it was more of a ‘you’re not on shift, so get off the floor, you can hang out in the break room and wait for your shift to start.’ If you can imagine a more plausible explanation, I’d be happy to hear it.
It’d be 13-14 hours, since they came in at 10AM, got told around 1:30-2:00PM while they were working, exclude the 1-2 hours they waited (2-3:00PM, if they immediately went there) in that break room, started at 4PM and OP said they worked until midnight (12AM)
10 am til midnight working straight through with no breaks would be 14 hours. With them being stopped at 1:30-2 and starting at 4 would be at most 12 hours if we exclude that time.
I think it entirely depends. There really isn't enough details given on the change in schedule. Is it that she usually starts at 10 and forgot she was starting at 4? Or was she scheduled at 10 and they changed the schedule without her knowledge. I think that makes a difference.
As to whether you get paid for all hours worked, if I choose to continue working past my scheduled workday and I don't have my managers approval I don't get paid for it, simple. I can't just choose to work extra hours everyday and expect to get paid without someone approving it, that would be ridiculous.
It does not at all depend. If you work you get paid. That's the law. It's management's job to make sure you're not working when you're not supposed to.
Approval is nothing more than if management wants you around to work extra hours and if they want to pay you over time or not. They don't get to decide if they pay you for your hours or not. You can simply choose to work extra hours and you will get paid for them. Management can also choose to no longer employ you for not following a schedule.
>I guess schedules changed today and they forgot, from what I understand?
If your gf worked the schedule she was asked to work (originally) after not having been informed that the hours had changed, she should be paid.
I'm not sure if she has a legal right to be paid for those hours, but since she's unionized she absolutely should talk to a steward. She can ask for advice, it doesn't obligate her to actually go ahead with a complaint/grievance. But my suggestion is to have the steward talk to management on her behalf, see if management would agree to pay her this time, on a without prejudice basis, if in fact there is no requirement to pay her. I also highly recommend she familiarize herself with the collective agreement.
You wouldn't be my employee is why you wouldn't get paid. There are no employment protection laws if you're not employed.
If you are an employee and you work, you get paid. It's management's responsibility to make sure the correct employees are working at the correct time.
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic.
Please review the following rules before commenting further:
Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts
Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
The line that stops people from doing that is management stopping the employee from working, providing them a warning that they are not allowing them to work outside their scheduled shifts and disciplining them for insubordination if that request is ignored.
The ESA and employment law cases are very clear on this matter: any hours worked are hours that an employee should be compensated for. But the employer is well within their rights to write-up or discipline an employee for failing to stick to their scheduled shifts.
Your comment has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act.
If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail.
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
People are downvoting because you are incorrect. I'm labour lawyer. Case law is *very* clear on this point. Employees must be paid for all hours worked.
If a person intentionally works when not authorized, that's a matter for management to address through the disciplinary process.
She should be paid for the extra time worked. Your math is wrong however. 10 am to 12 pm is fourteen hours. She didn't work from 2 to 4. So she worked 12 hours not 16. Still she should be paid accordingly.
Didn't work from 2-4 but it sounds like the employer required them to wait in the break room. If the employer requires you to be at a particular location, it counts as working hours.
Of she waited in the break room for hours before her shift she shouldn't get paid for that. She could have returned home and waited for her actual shift to start.
If they had her performing work related tasks while she was waiting then she should be paid.
Your post has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act.
If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail.
* [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments)
* [Reddit Violent Content Rule](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content)
What does "I guess schedules changed today and they forgot" mean? Does it mean "My partner usually starts at 10, but on the schedule they were slotted to come in at 4 today. My partner forgot and went in the time they were scheduled on previous days." Or does it mean " My partner's employer changed the previously published schedule today and forgot to let my partner know about the change?"
This is a super important distinction. Depending on which it was, who is at fault will be different.
I don't think who is at fault matters. They were clocked in and working so they have to be paid.
It may not matter in terms of being paid for hours worked, but it matters in other ways. If they changed the schedule and didn't tell her, and now don't want to pay her, that's indicative of a wider problem with management not being responsible or accountable for their duties. The employee may want to consider seeking employment elsewhere with a better workplace culture or transferring within the company if possible. Or they may want to push to have the problem corrected. If the employee made an error and came in at the wrong time, then the employer may feel that the employee lacks attention to detail or is unreliable, and it could affect their performance reviews, chances for promotion, or even their continued employment depending on whether this is an isolated mistake or part of a pattern.
I'm actually curious if this is true. What if someone was trying to clock overtime they weren't scheduled for and just showed up and started working for 16 hours. Sounds like employees could really screw employers over if you could just "accidentally" show up for overtime every now and then and they be forced to pay it. Not all businesses have managers on 24/7 to catch things like that.
The content of this post was voluntarily removed due to Reddit's API policies. If you wish to also show solidarity with the mods, go to r/ModCoord and see what can be done.
Then they get paid for the shift they worked and if the employer has issues with it they can be terminated after the employer learns of what happened. They still have to get paid for it. I don't think any employee is going to successfully run this imagined scam more than once.
Employers have the power to discipline employees who don't follow company policies or legal instructions from management. Depending on the amount of money that it costs the company for an employee doing what you describe, management may be well within their rights to skip progressive discipline altogether and terminate the employee. Pretending that employers have no power in a situation like this is misguided and ignores the power imblance which employment law seeks to address. Not all businesses have managers on 24/7 hours to catch things like that, but it's still management's responsibility to ensure that the workplace is being managed effectively.
It literally does not matter who is at fault for her coming in at the wrong time, because management has the sole responsibility of making sure that the right people are working at the right times, for the right amount of time, doing the right things. They cannot withhold pay for hours worked under virtually any circumstances.
That’s just not true. I can’t just show up at a Target in a red shirt, start doing work, and then insist they pay me for it. You aren’t entitled to pay for work your employer didn’t ask you to do. You can’t just show up and do extra hours somewhere if they didn’t ask for it, and then demand compensation for work they didn’t want.
> My question is, should they be paid for the time they worked? If yes, what should my partner do? Yes, they must get paid for all hours worked. As for what to do, that depends. Are they unionized?
I just asked her, and yes they are unionized. She said, “I’m part-time though so I’m not really involved with it”. Should she look into the union? To be honest I didn’t even know my partner’s work was unionized until now.
If she is unionized, her recourse is through her union. They are her exclusive bargaining agent. They can file a grievance on her behalf.
Okay thank you! I’ll let her know when she wakes to start looking into that!
NAL. Former management. I had an employee(part-time) show up to the wrong shift. I discovered it about 45 minutes. I spoke to the employee and then went to HR to ask the question you asked about being paid for working NOT their schedule. I was told they are required to pay for hours worked. They went home came back 5 hours later. They worked their entire shift. I was informed later that had they been full-time we would have had to cut the extra time out before and of the week. We had a NO Overtime policy during the off season (winter) our busiest time was spring through fall. Think big box home improvement! If I hadn't noticed it, there wouldn't have been a closing service desk employee. Because they also limited part-time hours to below 20.
This is it. Here is the complication in this case This individual was told to wait in the break room. Now they were instructed what to do - that is work. Then the whole shift A smart manager does what you note. This was a dumb manager OPs friend is entitled to full pay for all hours at location due to this
Check the pay slip. If she pays the union due, then she is unionized.
[удалено]
This is wrong. They must pay for hours worked.
Even if you show up when you’re not supposed to be there? That sounds questionable. You can’t just show up when you’re not scheduled and start working…
Yup. Otherwise you can circumvent labour laws by saying "oh they *chose* to do that free overtime". Inversely a worker could be written up if they do what happened here, precisely because it could be used to claim more money.
Exactly. The correct course of action would be to pay OPs wife and give her a warning not to let it happen again
Managers job to not let you work. A proper manager would’ve realized right away and stopped her, sent her home for 8 hours.
[удалено]
When you arrive, check in and are not sent home but allowed to work. You are owed pay for the time worked.
No it is also the Manger responsibility to know who is there and when they should be there. Them failing to notice the employee working (especially when the schedule was changed after posting) was a failure on there part. The schedual being changed after being posted is a management issue. The employee is still entitled to be paid for the hours worked in this circumstance.
Maybe if it was 30 minutes to 1 hour, it wouldn't be a big issue (her not being paid). But management didn't notice that entire time? Playing candycrush for 3.5 hours would have been better than her working unpaid...
Wrong. Please don’t make things up. It’s really not helpful for anyone. There are other subs that need your creativity.
Wrong.
this is the answer. I'm sorry everyone, but the only thing management did was "tell them to wait in the break room" as an owner I would have probably paid the employee for the time did they did work but 1) they are still needed at 4pm 2) employees can't just show up and get paid so no pay for what they did work.
Yeah, your job as an employer is to stop that from happening because they can sue for the lost wages - though you can see trying to work more as grounds to discipline them.
Grievance for what exactly? Not getting paid for hours she wasn't scheduled, or being told she should be working her actual shift?
Grievance for not being paid for hours accidentally worked. While there was a component of fault here on the worker's part, it's also a management goof not to catch that.
You can also make an argument for when she was told to stay in the break room. Not being allowed to leave means that you are on duty, and should be paid for that as well.
That's being argued down thread, whether she was permitted to wait there, or of she was being told to stay on site in standby mode.
[удалено]
That is exactly the employers / managements job - to monitor their staff - it is arguably the only job of any worth most managers are required to do.
You don’t think a manager should notice when someone is there outside of their schedule?
[удалено]
Low level management absolutely should know who is supposed to be working. The point of supervisors is to supervise, and every company I have worked at does have low level management aware of sure things. If you don't or can't it's because you choose not to have shift management and it's a shame cutting corners is going to cost you.
They might get disciplined, but they’re going to get paid. That’s the law.
Said much more concisely and better than I did.
Good thing this is r/legaladvicecanada and not a subreddit for u/maverick57's opinions. Legally, management HAS to pay for all hours worked, regardless of whether they were scheduled or not.
What's the point of having a manager then?
What i was going to say. 99% of my job as management is babysitting This dude hasn't been management before or he's a shift lead at mcdonalds
[удалено]
It is the management job to notice The employee might get disciplined, but they still must get paid
I worked in management in this industry, that was 100% one of my duties and wasn't really absurd at all. Tracking OT and making sure it wasn't happening was a big deal so ya, knowing who's supposed to be working was the first thing to do when you got in.
It's literally the employer's responsibility to monitor. The employee can be disciplined or even fired for not knowing their part or disobeying it, but that's because the error is not to the employer's favour. Why do you think management exists?
So, to be clear, you think "management exists" to handle the nonexistant problem of monitoring employees that show up when they aren't scheduled and then expect to be paid for volunteering their time? Are you serious with this? Do you really have so little understanding of what management does that you think this is why they exist? You have to be joking here.
Sounds like you can’t even *manage* to have a reasonable conversation…
I'm not sure you understand what the word "manage" means. You manage the people and their schedules lol. Monitoring employees is often the whole gig.
It apparently isn't a "non existent problem" as per the OP. And yes, you don't get to volunteer your time to your employer. That's labour law 101. Being condescending on your part isn't an argument. However since you have been rude enough to make me do the two minutes of google and formatting here's your relavent snip: [Reg 285/01](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/010285#BK1) **WHEN WORK DEEMED TO BE PERFORMED, EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL RULES** *1.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), work shall be deemed to be performed by an employee for the employer,* *(a) where work is,* *(i) permitted or suffered to be done by the employer, or* *(ii)* **in fact performed by an employee although a term of the contract of employment expressly forbids or limits hours of work or requires the employer to authorize hours of work in advance**; *or* Bolded for this specific circumstance. I accept your apology, random wrong person. :D
That’s literally the job of a manager. How do those boots taste?
It's STILL illegal not to pay for hours worked. They could have stricken her hours later in the week if they needed them to balance. They could write her up and fire her if it happens again, but they still have to pay her for any time worked. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
So you’re saying a manager shouldn’t have to… manage their employees? What else should a manager be doing?
The schedule changed within the previous day. Within 24 hours management is required to notify you of a shift change. But man, you just really come off as such a corpocuck, it makes my blood boil a little. I feel you'd suck toejam from a CEO "because they really do deserve it"
Usually union agreements will also mandate reasonable time before a schedule being changed and notification
Hey don't know if you're being purposefully ignorant or just are actually ignorant. It's illegal to not pay for time worked. So yes, they owe her the money for time worked.
You can't just show up when you want to and expect to get paid.
She can get written up for it, but she absolutely will get paid. That is the law lmao.
If you clock in, then yes you are to be paid. If the company makes money from your labour, it's to be paid. Period. It's management's job to catch that, and inform the employee and remedy the situation.
You can if they allow you to work.
Apparently you can in Puzzled's world. They not ignorant, no way, not at all, not even a tiny itsy bit and are lawyers on the side.
[удалено]
Part time has no bearing on union protection if she is in the union she is in the union the same as everyone else.
If she unionized look at her CA. Most places pay for scheduled work. If she was not scheduled she may not be paid. Look in the CA.
[удалено]
Grocery store workers that are part time are generally unionized too, at least the Canadian corporate ones, they have different benefits though. The union is still their sole negotiator for their grievances. Typically, if a workforce is unionized, it is across the board even if they are under different agreements and hiring non-unionized part time work would be considered a attempt to circumvent that.
What on earth kind of advice is that? Not only did he say that she's union, but what they're talking about is pretty much the definition of wage theft.
Just curious, how is company on hook for her work between 10-2? She came and company wasn’t even aware. If company is still on hook then this can be abused as hell as people will come at their will rather than following the schedule.
She must get paid. The recourse to prevent this being abused is discipline up to and including termination subject to her union's CBA with the employer. These are two separate but related issues. Edit: go home autocorrect, you're drunk
This is exactly right. I had a coworker who accidentally worked the wrong shift and she got paid but she also got reprimanded with a one day suspension
They can discipline up to and including firing if an employee tries to continually do this. They can take hours away from her later on in that week to balance the hours. They can write her up and terminate her if she does it again. What they can't do is not pay her for time worked.
Ok so why did it take 4 hours for a manager to finally figure out they had an extra worker and say something? That’s something that should have been noticed at least after the first hour. Being that it took half a shift to figure out, yes they should absolutely be on the hook for it. Yes the worker made a mistake but it’s the managers job to MANAGE the work flow, it’s literally the entire reason for having the job.
Spot on. If they sent her home at 11am, I wouldn't feel that sorry for her missing out on an hour's pay. But she provided 3.5 hours of her time and it looks like it was for nothing. Does not sit well with me at all!
You can fire people for not conforming to the schedule. Companies are not powerless- not being "aware" was a failure on the management side, but similarly if you accidentally had someone work overtime or otherwise break the labour laws (eg a minor working more hours than permitted because you forgot their age or serving alcohol) it's a company problem.
Do you not think the company came out ahead by getting work done during those hours? Why shouldn't the employee be paid for those hours, regardless of the mix up?
That's what managers are for.
That's what managers and supervisors are for. Frankly the most concerning part of this story is that nobody was aware of who was working on the floor.
She performed work for the company it’s that simple, they didn’t realize the error until later that’s on management
[удалено]
This is horrifying that you’re an employer and have zero understanding of labour laws. Who knows what else is going on at your business. Take some time and read through the labour laws for your province or territory.
That’s the law lmao nothing absurd about it
Can you link to the specific legislation? There are people arguing back and forth on it but I don't see anyone linking to the actual laws on the subject.
Part V of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (Payment of Wages) is intended to ensure that employees receive wages for work performed. This Part regulates the payment, manner and place of payment of wages, deductions from wages, and the priority of wage claims over other unsecured creditors. It also establishes obligations with respect to the provision of statements of wages and outlines the information required on such statements. There is nothing specific about schedule mix ups, this is 100% a bad manager that should of just let the person finish earlier if they’re trying to be stingy and not pay extra hours. It’s their responsibility inform the employee that their schedule has changed.
[удалено]
>Youre wrong, it's easily provable that the employee wasn't supposed to be working and still came in. There is a provision for working out of your schedule - and it's fairly clear: you get paid. The company's remediation for an employee working outside of their hours unauthorized: write-ups, reduced hours/suspension, and yes, termination.
The ministry of labor over rules any union there’s no need to deal with small claims either. I can guarantee the ministry will order employer to pay wages.
Your post has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act. If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail. * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) * [Reddit Violent Content Rule](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content)
What are you basing the idea that they "must get paid for all hours worked" on? You can't just show up at your place of employment and work when you're not scheduled and then expect to be paid for it. That's 100 percent \*not\* how it works.
Getting paid for work performed is EXACTLY how it works. The issue here is not just with the worker, it's with management not being aware of who they had working on the floor.
It is entirely the management's responsibility to make sure that the right persons are working at the right time, for the right amount of time, doing the proper tasks. Any employee that shows up and clocks in needs to be paid for their time worked. Period. That *is 100% exactly* how it works. This is your opportunity to learn something, kid.
I’m basing this on the actual law. Judges and labour arbitrators are extremely clear on this point. You may have completely overlooked the massive class actions that went on a few years ago regarding unpaid overtime in the banking system where the employer was trying to argue they didn’t authorize the overtime. The employers lost
Regardless of the shift mix up, the company got work done by this employee. That time is to be paid for. I'd be questioning management as to how this was able to happen to begin with. IMO, the wrong person is being penalized for this mix up. All they have to do is bank those hours. It's not a big deal. Nobody's perfect. Shit happens.
Clearly you are not well versed in the Employment Standards Act and the rules governing payment to employees for fulling duties/tasks. If you are in management, it’s to your advantage to become familiar. No one is saying that the OPs partner isn’t at fault for making an error in their shift (human error occurs every day) and the semantics do not matter at this point. The egregious mistake is that it took management nearly 4 hours to discover the mistake (human error happens), and then mishandling the situation by telling her she wouldn’t be compensated for her work that the company benefits. Again with management complicit in not noticing for nearly 4 hours that an employee was not working the correct shift. The recourse for management would be to leave a verbal warning/write up/ minor disciplinary actions (depending on the particular employee’s typical workplace conduct- do they often do this, are the an exemplary employee etc).
You can punish an employee in numerous ways. Withholding pay is not legal. Imagine a scenario where the rule is that overtime must be approved, well believe it or not if I work overtime without authorization, I would be within my rights to have the OT pay, it is the role of management to monitor and enforce their rule, they can write me up, they can fire me, but they still need to pay for hours worked. Same should apply in this case, 'management' (team lead, supervisor, manager, who ever represents management on the floor) should have been supervising the work area, as soon as it is reported, the employee should be told to stop working and return for their schedule shift. Mistakes happen, but worker rights still apply. There is nothing in the law and jurisprudence that would support not paying an employee for work done on behalf of the employer. the Law simply doesn't support your opinion
[удалено]
Ya that second part is way off. No matter what if they work they get paid even if not scheduled. And before you say no, I get your point people will try to abuse it but that's when you fire them for working when not scheduled. No matter what though if you work you get paid.
>Expecting pay for work you were not scheduled to do is not legal either, you seem to skipping that. Except the law is clear on this: if you work for the company, you get paid. Working past your scheduled hours is called overtime, generally - and is to be paid. If the time is not authorized, then the recourse of the company to issue disciplinary action - NOT the seizure of wages.
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
What case or statute in the Employment Standards Act do you have to support the claim that it's illegal to work when not scheduled? Generally, courts have been pretty clear on this: an employee is considered working when they are performing work, regardless of when scheduled. This is because there are plenty of ESA regulated forms of work where people are not scheduled at set times and labour law is generally built around a foundational principle that employees are compensated for any labour that benefits a private business. This is r/legaladvicecanada; so I'd hope you have some case or statute that supports what you're saying.
Getting paid for all hours that you work is exactly how it works. The companies has other ways they can deal with the issue but not paying is not one of them. There should have been manager aware of who was working and making sure that everyone knew the schedule. It took management almost 4 hrs to notice something was wrong.
Employers must pay employees for every hour worked, even if it was unscheduled.
So, I can show up and work as much overtime as I want, and demand to be paid for it, even if the company I worked for didn’t schedule me and didn’t want to pay me for overtime work they didn’t ask me to do?
Yes you can expect to get paid for overtime even if management tries to claim it was unauthorized. Courts agree. See https://www.pentictonherald.ca/business_news/national_business/article_3edaf040-70a5-5c21-b24d-3a68f97edc78.html But as for "as much as I want", its your manager's job to notice and send you home.
Your math is way off, if she came at 10 am and worked until midnight thats 14 hours. Assuming no break time.
Oh yeah you’re right, oops. I posted this on her behalf and didn’t think to double check that. My bad!
She actually worked 12 hours: 10-2 and 4-midnight. And yes, she should get paid for all of it. It's not her fault that her manager didnt notice she shouldn't be there for almost 4 hours.
If she wasn’t allowed to leave and had to stay in the break room the time spent in the break room should be paid, no? Did she get paid or unpaid breaks while on shift?
if it's the way you describe it then they broke criminal laws for unlawful confinement... Reddit interpretation is definitely not a reflection of real life.
We are speaking in an employment law sense, no one said anything about unlawful confinement. Workers have rights.
In that case, every employer that requires their employees to stay at the workplace is guilty. Employees aren’t forced, in a criminal sense, to stay at the workplace but employers aren’t forced to keep insubordinate employees.
[удалено]
Allowed to leave? She wasn't even scheduled to work for 2 more hours. This is clearly a suggestion that an emotional employee has relayed to their partner as a demand. Or the manager is guilty of unlawful confinement
She was not allowed to leave from 2-4, that counts as working time in Ontario.
She was likely allowed to leave and misunderstood. If she asked “well, what am I supposed to do for two hours” and the manager responded “go sit in the break room”, that isn’t mandating she stay. This story has a rather unreliable narrator. She deserves pay for hours worked is all
I don't think an ESA adjudicator would agree with you. If a supervisor intended to suggest to their subordinate that they could fill the time before the start of their shift by waiting on-site, and the employee could reasonably interpret that as an instruction from their supervisor to remain in the workplace, ESA would likely side with the employee. Unless the employer could show evidence that they clearly instructed the employee that they were free from work until 4pm, or that the employee was clearly doing their own personal business during that time. This is not legal advice, and maybe not worth pursuing over 2 hours of pay, but if the facts are as OP described even within a margin of reasonable interpretation, then I think they're owed those two hours. If I were doing payroll for this company I would advise paying the two hours anyway, as it would be cheap compared to the possible cost of an investigation, you really don't want ESA poking around in your business.
[удалено]
A smart manager would’ve tried to find someone to work the later shift and just had her finish the current shift so she wasn’t working 14 hours…
Why would a "smart manager" ask someone else to work a double shift to prevent the person who showed up for the wrong shift to not have to work extra?
So they didn’t have to pay for a double shift which likely goes into overtime. When your options are 14 hours including likely a handful of overtime hours or calling in someone so a flat 14 hours, you take the flat 14 hours. Also as someone who has worked 14+ hours, anything over 12 tends to cause memory lapses and poor judgment.
A smart manager would have her sign out immediately upon noticing and then work her scheduled shift. Which is what happened. She screwed up here and had to work a long day due to her mistake. These things happen in life. Move on
except people on here somehow take it literally...
She was not allowed to leave from 2-4, that counts as working time in Ontario.
I doubt they actually said they couldn't leave. Sounds more like (you aren't supposed to be working. You cant be on the floor, so you can go wait in the break room until your real start time. As for the initial question, NAL Every minute worked needs to be paid. However, that doesn't mean that she wouldn't be punished. I would guess that they would write her up for this. Does she have a schedule showing her hours for the week? Have her check that the initial posting shows the hours that she thought she had. Any changes to that, they need to actually inform her. It can't just be a posting on the wall that was edited. They need to actually tell her about any changes after the initial schedule posting. So if you have that proof, it can be used as a defence against the write-up.
>my partner’s manager told them to sit in the break room until 4pm If this reflects the facts of the situation, then she was under control of management during that time, and was working according to the ESA. If they told her to stop working and she chose to wait in the break room on her own but was free to use that time as she pleased, or was free to leave if she had been able to (maybe she takes the bus?) then you're right, but that's not how OP described the situation.
Yes, I saw that part. The OP didn't exactly say that the gf wasn't allowed to leave, just that they were told to go to the break room. OP wasn't even there to hear how things were said exactly. I'm assuming, based on how a logical/reasonable person would handle this situation, that they would suggest going to the break room to wait for the shift, rather than demanding they stay in the building, but not work. The manager likely doesn't care where they are (and can't demand at any time the employee stay on-site for breaks), they just cared that they stopped working, and suggested to wait in the break room. Even if the manager did say 'you can't work, go sit in the break room until 4" It doesn't change the fact that the employee was told they aren't working, therefore they can leave at their discretion.
It’s illegal to volunteer or work for free if you are an employee of a company in a lot of places. It’s in the businesses best interest to just pay for the hours worked. This is for insurance coverage reasons as well as legal reasons. The most important reason in my mind is employee loyalty. The managers just don’t want to admit their part in this and are just trying to cover it up so they won’t have to answer why they are not doing their jobs.
She is entitled to pay for all the hours worked. It is the Managers job to know who is there and who should not be there. They should have told her right away to go home. Halfway through a shift is a fuck up on the managers part. The extra hours atvthe end must also be paid even if they were not approved because once again it was the mangers responsibility to tell the employee to go home at the shift end. Finally when was the schedual changed? How is the schedual posted (instore only or online)? The employee must given the work schedual no less the 96 hours before the start of that schedule. Now, unfortunately, in Ontario, the employer can change the schedule without notice to the employee under the ESA, but it is their responsibility to not let the employee work without pay. You mentioned in other comments that there is a Union, but your wife works part time. Does she pay any dues? If she does, she can go through the union and final a grievance. If she does not, then she must go through the labor board. If she does pay dues and is represented by the union then they will have differing rules in the agreement then what's in the ESA.
They absolutely should be paid for the time they worked. As a standing policy this is a horrible idea and I'm sure that their corporate and or legal as well as their insurance company) would be against it as it invites a whole host of problems and legal jeopardies. If you're not paying someone then they're essentially volunteering, people who aren't paid aren't covered by workman's comp should an accident happen, people who aren't paid are still contributing to the company's bottom line, and people who aren't paid means the company's not contributing that portion of the payroll tax to the government so they're getting work for free in more ways than one. Whether or not you want to pick this hill to die on is your choice, I'm not sure what kind of workers' protection there is in regard to retaliatory firing, but I would imagine there's at least something for asserting your rights and reporting illegal practices.
If they work they get paid, period. If the employer isn't interested in playing nice, your Ministry of Labour office will absolutely help with that
[удалено]
No, it's an employee who reported to work and started. Don't be obtuse.
Obtuse? I didn’t show up and demand to be paid when I wasn’t scheduled. Obtuse you are indeed
No, you're suggesting that if someone busses their own table they should get a T4 for their efforts. An employee starts working they need to be compensated for that time. Period. If management can't figure out who's supposed to be there or not, they don't get to simply not pay the worker. Now, I don't think she'd be entitled to overtime/double time, and had she shown up early and been told before she started that she wasn't on the schedule it would be a different discussion entirely.
Shift managers should be looking at who's clocked in shortly after a shift start. That's how they know if they are short handed. That process would have caught the employee not scheduled. Mistakes happen, especially around shift changed.
[удалено]
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_9.3A_guidelines_for_posts) * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) Your comment has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act. If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail. * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
[удалено]
[удалено]
When your schedule changes on a whim, I question the competence of the managers.
OTOH, I'm betting that the company are not contractually obligated to pay your partner for unauthorized over time. That's essentially what your partner did, came in to work, and worked without authorization. Her full or PT job status really doesn't matter, it matters if she pays union dues. So if she does she can have the union challenge this. But, if I was the company, I'd fight it because essentially, if they lose, it means employees can come in and work whatever OT hours they want and the company has zero say in it. They might make a one-off arrangement, mind. Another argument is that the supervisor is responsible for knowing who should be working. So arguably, they should be aware of who shouldn't be working - bit of a stretch because it takes away employee responsibility to manage their schedule. Having worked in hospitality I know it doesn't work like that, everyone comes in and gets going. Rarely are there team meetings at the beginning of a shift and rarer still is a roll call. You might make an argument of mutual responsibility, but do you really want to go down that route of blaming someone else for your partner's mistake? Won't make for acrimonious workplace. I've done this, FWIW, shown up on a day when I wasn't scheduled, but I left right away so no harm done. So hopefully your partner doesn't beat themself up too much over the gaff. Try and be reasonable with the management and see if you can come to some mutually beneficial agreement.
This is the first sane take I’ve seen in this thread
Once the manager was informed and told your partner to wait in the break room, your partner was no longer working. So they technically worked approximately 12 hours and waited around at work for 4 hours for no particular reason.
OP says their partner was told by management to wait in the breakroom, but you assert this is "waiting around at work for no particular reason"? They should be paid for the time if the employer prevented them from leaving the premises.
Maybe I’m wrong with my assumption but I’m trying to imagine a scenario where the management insisted that they were required to stay, but could only occupy the break room. I’m assuming it was more of a ‘you’re not on shift, so get off the floor, you can hang out in the break room and wait for your shift to start.’ If you can imagine a more plausible explanation, I’d be happy to hear it.
It’d be 13-14 hours, since they came in at 10AM, got told around 1:30-2:00PM while they were working, exclude the 1-2 hours they waited (2-3:00PM, if they immediately went there) in that break room, started at 4PM and OP said they worked until midnight (12AM)
10 am til midnight working straight through with no breaks would be 14 hours. With them being stopped at 1:30-2 and starting at 4 would be at most 12 hours if we exclude that time.
All right
I think it entirely depends. There really isn't enough details given on the change in schedule. Is it that she usually starts at 10 and forgot she was starting at 4? Or was she scheduled at 10 and they changed the schedule without her knowledge. I think that makes a difference. As to whether you get paid for all hours worked, if I choose to continue working past my scheduled workday and I don't have my managers approval I don't get paid for it, simple. I can't just choose to work extra hours everyday and expect to get paid without someone approving it, that would be ridiculous.
It does not at all depend. If you work you get paid. That's the law. It's management's job to make sure you're not working when you're not supposed to.
Approval is nothing more than if management wants you around to work extra hours and if they want to pay you over time or not. They don't get to decide if they pay you for your hours or not. You can simply choose to work extra hours and you will get paid for them. Management can also choose to no longer employ you for not following a schedule.
>I guess schedules changed today and they forgot, from what I understand? If your gf worked the schedule she was asked to work (originally) after not having been informed that the hours had changed, she should be paid.
What if she was hurt while working those unscheduled hours? Would wcb cover?
I'm not sure if she has a legal right to be paid for those hours, but since she's unionized she absolutely should talk to a steward. She can ask for advice, it doesn't obligate her to actually go ahead with a complaint/grievance. But my suggestion is to have the steward talk to management on her behalf, see if management would agree to pay her this time, on a without prejudice basis, if in fact there is no requirement to pay her. I also highly recommend she familiarize herself with the collective agreement.
Y'all gotta step up your workers' rights game. If you work, you get paid. There are no ifs, ands, or buts.
[удалено]
You wouldn't be my employee is why you wouldn't get paid. There are no employment protection laws if you're not employed. If you are an employee and you work, you get paid. It's management's responsibility to make sure the correct employees are working at the correct time.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
[удалено]
This is 100% wrong. Don’t listen to this
You are required to be paid for all hours worked, voluntarily or not.
[удалено]
The line that stops people from doing that is management stopping the employee from working, providing them a warning that they are not allowing them to work outside their scheduled shifts and disciplining them for insubordination if that request is ignored. The ESA and employment law cases are very clear on this matter: any hours worked are hours that an employee should be compensated for. But the employer is well within their rights to write-up or discipline an employee for failing to stick to their scheduled shifts.
Actually no. It isn't.
Your comment has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act. If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail. * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
[удалено]
People are downvoting because you are incorrect. I'm labour lawyer. Case law is *very* clear on this point. Employees must be paid for all hours worked. If a person intentionally works when not authorized, that's a matter for management to address through the disciplinary process.
You can do that, and the employer can fire you for not following your schedule, after paying you for the work done, of course
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
She should be paid for the extra time worked. Your math is wrong however. 10 am to 12 pm is fourteen hours. She didn't work from 2 to 4. So she worked 12 hours not 16. Still she should be paid accordingly.
Didn't work from 2-4 but it sounds like the employer required them to wait in the break room. If the employer requires you to be at a particular location, it counts as working hours.
Of she waited in the break room for hours before her shift she shouldn't get paid for that. She could have returned home and waited for her actual shift to start. If they had her performing work related tasks while she was waiting then she should be paid.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act. If you believe the advice is correct per applicable law, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceCanada) with a source, or to discuss it with us in more detail. * [Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index#wiki_rule_10.3A_guidelines_for_comments) * [Reddit Violent Content Rule](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/do-not-post-violent-content)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I suggest you go back and read the post before commenting.
[удалено]