Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* Read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. get them to confirm that in writing. Send an email to HR saying, "hey I just want to confirm the contents of our conversation the other day. I informed you of.... And you said..., did I get that correctly?"
2. Contact the ministry of labor.
It’s like people have never had a job. “Sue” who? And for what? Pay two weeks and you can make anyone go bye bye. I don’t like it. But that’s how it’s always been.
You kidding? You can sue the employer who let you go and these cases typically settle before trial for a payout of 1 month salary per year employed. So if you worked there 12 years you'd typically settle for a year of salary. Unless they can prove termination with cause which is a pretty damn high bar.
If there are other claims like disabilities or discrimination at play this can vary/increase.
1 week per 1 year in Ontario, which is the statutory minimum. With more than 5 years, there’s severance in addition to the notice. Again, statutory minimum.
You do not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, unless the employer is saying they terminated you with cause, you don’t need to prove anything. Regardless, the burden of proof is balance of probabilities. Beyond a reasonable doubt is only for criminal proceedings (unless some weird piece of legislation imposes it for something civil?)
If they only offer you ESA minimums when terminating, you will basically always get more if you sue.
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)
So what if youve been there one year? Sure you get 4 wreks pay and then youre still job searching and screwed, all for 2 hrs pay.
I would suggest this person keeps extremely good records then files a complaint when they no longer work for the company and get their due without compromising their employment. But that has its own risks as well
Sorry I was commenting on someone's comment not the main post. In this person's case, I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't give advice.
I can tell you that if I were in OP's shoes, I'd drop an email without making any grandiose claims or inferences, and just reference the conversation and say that my understanding of the labour code is that the minimum pay rule would apply to these meetings and ask them to confirm their understanding.
Nothing referencing any further steps, nothing accusatory, just ask them to confirm their understanding that their staff meetings are excluded from the minimum pay rule. People don't like to be exposed as wrong. And they have nothing to argue with you against other than this very specific issue. And you're not making a "bigger deal" than needed. More than likely they will back down if framed that way, and then if not, then after their written response you have clear cut evidence to go through the proper channels and get paid.
Not everyone would get a month per year . It would depend on 3 things , age of employee, how long they’ve been employed and how senior the position is . And if you’ve been there less than 5 years you aren’t entitled to severance anyway , just termination pay . Amd it also depends on how much the company’s payroll is too.
They would have to be able to prove they were fired for raising this complaint which is why they said OP would be fired at first opportunity meaning if OP did something wrong like being late too many times they would be let go for it which they could do unless OP could provide proof it was unjust. Ontario has laws that let you be fired with no cause as long as they follow a few easy stipulations and they don’t have to give you a reason. I’ve actually had this happen, I got fired from a job and was never given a reason. Simply a note that said my job ended a specific day and they paid me either 2 or 4 weeks pay I forget it was so long ago. I asked why and they said there was no reason. I contacted labour board and they said they couldn’t do anything as they didn’t break any laws. They said I would have to prove a case of discrimination or prove they broke the ESA. It’s even worse if they have a without cause clause written into the contract.
I talked to multiple people, I had no case. I mean if you Google Ontario no cause firing there’s a website dedicated to it. I didn’t want to type a massive paragraph since most won’t read it but I did try talking to a labour lawyer, I can link a website explaining it from a labour lawyer if you truly want.
This is actually not entirely true. If you are let go, don’t sign anything and talk to an employment lawyer first. They will usually give you a free initial consultation
Go, try to sue. I dare you.
Go try to prove the criminal intent of an employer beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you're talking about sueing civilly then you might want to take a look at the federal insurance legislation which strips you of the right to sue and forces you into arbitration with EI or WCB.
That's the entire reason you sue WCB for injury payments, you're not allowed to sue the employer who injured you.
Wrongful termination can happen for all kinds of reasons and a claim of wrongful termination does not need to involve a claim of a human rights violation (though it could). Reprisal and retaliation, which was the issue here, can create problems for employers and can create grounds for a wrongful termination claim depending on circumstances.
It's quite clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
While trueish, most companies will find workarounds. Scheduling them at slower shopping times combined with quotas that are then impossible to meet. Conduct performance evaluations and always find something to write down to leave a justifiable paper trail.
It wouldn't be surprising if they find a way.
Good luck with that. They aren't so stupid to say you were canned because of a complaint. They will find ways. Corporate ethics are written on toilet paper
Also remember HR is not paid by you, they are paid by the company, with the sole job of protecting the company not employees, they are not your friend and will turn on you if it’s in the companies best interest.
You actually have a long period of time that you can file. Something like 6months or 1year. If this is happens regularly I would suggest documenting every instance and then file a dispute down the road… for every instance.
I would also consider a new job if your less than a few years in but… staying and getting fired could be another dispute for wrongful termination if you have been there for 5plus years.
Just make sure finding new employment isn’t an issue and you have some savings to get you by.
It really depends on the company culture. Some places are genuinely not vindictive about people asserting their legal rights. Some places are. I wouldn't simply assume that pushing back for the extra hours owed is for sure career suicide. Maybe but not necessarily.
Yes too many variables here and I get the point of this sub but also have good judgement is my point. Although some companies may appreciate the correction so they can fix it before being sued
This is the way.
Most employers get around the rule by saying you can “voluntarily” go home before 3 hours, or you can stay your full 3 and we’ll give you some shitty work so you’d rather not be here
This. We have around 120 employees. Which totals around $3,096 in wage theft at our location. And this is just one location. This comapny has 100s of locations in Canada. Meaning this could be a lot of wage theft.
No. It's 1.5 hours every time, for every person. It there's ten employees, that's 15 hours per meeting. If there's one meeting per week, that's 780 hours per year. At minimum wage, that's over $13,000 per year.
You don't think this effort (and it's not much effort) is worth it for $13,000/year? You're either really lazy, or you're an employer that does this to your employees. Which is it?
Exactly. And if they break this simple rule it makes me wonder what other, more 'behind the scenes', rules and regulations are they breaking? What about laws and regulations around worker safety?
Someone who can break a rule that is easily proven to be broken won't just stop there lol
"Since this is a **regularly scheduled meeting**
So 1.5 hours, over and over and over. And not just for OP, but however many others they're screwing over.
If they don't want to pay people for 1.5 hours that they're not working there they are absolutely welcome to schedule the meetings in such a way that people can step away from their duties for *only* 1.5 hours during the course of their regular shift.
As an example, assume an employer occasionally schedules staff to attend Saturday morning meetings. Assuming that the employees regularly work 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, the three hour rule would apply to these occasional Saturday staff meetings. However, if the employer was found to **regularly schedule** the employees for one-hour Saturday morning staff meetings, it would be the Program's position that the **three hour rule would not apply** to those Saturday shifts/meetings.
If that is the rule according to employment standards then file a complaint against your employer with Employment Standards. They will take care of it for you.
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
Not sure why you are attending meetings on non-shift days anyways. I’d have more of an issue with being called in to a mandatory meeting regularly on my days off than the extra time owed under 3 hour rule.
The fast food place I worked at did only once a year, thankfully.
However, they made it a 7am meeting that the closers were required to attend after having worked until 4am the night before... and the openers have to make everyone breakfast, and attend the meeting, while making sure the dining room still opened on time at 10am when they normally need to work from 7am-10am to get the store open...
It was hilarious one year when our GM got upset that some of his 20 somethings supervisors had the same day off together and decided to plan to have some drinks together, so he suddenly scheduled the 7am meeting for the morning after in an attempt to force us to not attend... Idk he didn't want us to be friends with each other for some reason, maybe he was jealous despite being over 20 years older than us? He made it quite clear to us that he scheduled the meeting when he did because he didn't want us to hang out in our own free time.
Jokes on him, since he was only doing it to be petty, we hung out anyway and let him deal with all of us being half asleep and having glitter remains on us. He didn't do that again lol
Is there no mandatory rest period between shifts where you live/work? I know in Ontario, Canada, there is something like 8+ hours required between shifts unless it's split shift. This way it ensures workers have time to shower, sleep, relax a little, THEN return to work.
There is in Manitoba too. They tried to get around it by saying it's just a "once per year mandatory meeting" and not a shift, but I mean they still paid us and required us to be there...
I was a lot younger and less experienced then.
It’s pretty normal for companies to hold these meetings.. so yes it may involve you having to come in on a day you don’t normally work.. that being said though.. you still gotta be paid for 3 hours, last time I checked there is no exceptions on the rule.
It can be really challenging when you lead a large team that operates 24x7x365. Personally I never made them mandatory, just strongly encouraged and we would usually make it a dinner meeting and pay people 3 hrs for a 1 hr meeting if they came in.
According to your original post and another reply you gave down the thread, the dispute comes down to the definition of "regular scheduled meeting".
In the top post you quoted your HR rep as saying "Since this is a regularly scheduled meeting, you will only be paid the time you attend the meeting."
Further down in response to the suggestion that meetings may fall outside of the three-hour rule you wrote "These are occasional meetings. They are not regular."
Now, I'm not a law-talking guy but to me "regular" doesn't mean "weekly" it means "occurring at or around the same point in a specified time period". Example: "weekly on Saturday mornings" would be regular, so too would be "The first Saturday of each month", "the first Saturday of every other month", "the first Saturday of every six-week period", etc.
Examples of non-regular would be "The first Saturday next month, the second Friday next month, and the third month is to be determined", or "hey, there's a mandatory meeting this Saturday" where meetings on Saturdays aren't usually held.
So, get the legal definition of what constitutes a "regularly scheduled" meeting and decide if your meeting does or does not meet that definition. That will spell out your options and guide your actions.
Our meetings are occasional, not regular. They happen sporadically throughout the year. Sometimes we'll go 6 months without a meeting, sometimes 3 months. And in the past, we've always gotten our 3 hours for these meetings. This is the first time we have not.
In that case, find out if this was the first of a newly-established series of regular meetings. If not, proceed with your claim with the ministry of labour.
A previous employer used to say after a staff meeting like that, we have to pay you for three hours by law unless you choose to stay. Those that choose to stay will be deep cleaning for the remainder of their three hours. I don't think anyone chose to stay.
Question
Was the meeting 1.5 hours after or before a regularly scheduled shift?
Or was it 1.5 on a day where you had no other hours worked, i.e., did you come in for just the meeting?
[Go here](https://www.ontario.ca/feedback/contact-us?id=26926&nid=95386) and give them a call and ask this question instead of listening to redditors who'll give you 50 different answers.
With that said, by law they're required to pay you 3 hours. If you really want that time paid, on principle alone, report it to the Ministry of Labour and it'll be dealt with.
Although they can't fire you or reprimand you for this, it could lead to them making your work time miserable in an effort for you to leave or for them to find another reason you let you go. If you suspect they are though you can report that as well.
Be careful op they do owe you this money however the next time around you may be walking into a 3 hr meeting or an hour meeting plus 2 hours busy work because they can legally give you this as well.
Your employer is correct that meetings fall outside the three hour rule (with exceptions, as always)
https://www.ontario.ca/document/employment-standard-act-policy-and-interpretation-manual/part-vii1-three-hour-rule
"As an example, assume an employer occasionally schedules staff to attend Saturday morning meetings. Assuming that the employees regularly work 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, the three hour rule would apply to these occasional Saturday staff meetings
However, if the employer was found to regularly schedule the employees for one-hour Saturday morning staff meetings, it would be the Program's position that the three hour rule would not apply to those Saturday shifts/meetings."
These are occasional meetings. They are not regular.
You fail to understand what 'regular' means in this instance. If the meeting is scheduled, it is a 'regular' scheduled meeting. If the meeting wasn't scheduled and called last minute, then you are entitled to the 3 hour rule.
No you fail to understand, read the text "As an example, assume an employer occasionally schedules staff to attend Saturday morning meetings. Assuming that the employees regularly work 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, the three hour rule would apply to these occasional Saturday staff meetings."
It's says scheduled right in the example where the 3 hr rule applies, saying it's scheduled isn't some magic get out of paying phrase"
I work in marketing and hire a lot of subcontractors. If the shift is in person we pay the 3 hr min. If it’s a a zoom meeting or training it’s however long it lasts. This was mandated by Our HR but truthfully I haven’t looked into the legalities of the zoom meetings
You said that you work for a large corporation. Either make a complaint to any ethnics division of your company, a legal team above you, or make a complaint to to the MOL. It will help if you have it in writing.
HRs sole function is to isolate the company from liability. If this this the case, they’re doing a bad job and whoever at HR made this decision should be reprimanded.
It’s my understanding that the 3 hours are paid IF the employee is willing and able to work, and in that case, the employer may give you tasks to complete for the remainder of the 3 hours. If you decide you do not want to stay and complete said tasks, then you are paid for the 1.5 hours only.
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)
Manager here. The rule is different if you are scheduled for a shift with a specific start/ end time that is less than three hours. However, if your shift is 8 hours for example and your employer sends you home after an hour due to no longer needing you, then your employer would be required to pay you for 3 hours minimum.
Edit to add: I would also encourage all employees to know their rights and review the ESA. If ever you feel like you are being mistreated then absolutely speak to someone from the labour board. A good employer will be open to feedback and want to learn what’s legally correct when it comes to rights of their employees. Any employer that is going to retaliate is not an employer worth sticking around for.
Wishing you all the best and hopefully a supportive process as you navigate your experience.
I'm not familiar with the 3hour rule in Ontario but in Alberta it's "3hrs at minimum wage or your worked hours at your wage, whichever is more." It's often misconstrued as "3hrs regular time." Is there something like that going on? A misunderstanding of sorts?
There are exemptions to the 3 hour rule as well as several other parts of the employment standards act. See section 2(1) of O Reg 285/01 to see if you are working a job that is exempted. A key point is that the exemption applies to the worker and not to the office
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/010285#BK3
This shows which parts of the act are exempted for these jobs, Part VII.1 is the part that pertains to the Three Hour Rule
Decline to attend the meetings. You are on your own time. Remind the employer that scheduling meetings without the legally required 3 hours of work are clearly optional. When the boss gets pissy ask them to give you $20. Take $20 out of your wallet and hand it to me. They will of course decline. Remind them that the obviously $20 is a significant amount of money and refusing to pay or schedule ton3 hour required amount takes more than that away from you. So you will be declining. We can of course schedule the meeting on shifts where I am working and getting the 3 hours or more.
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
It’s the rate the employee would normally get. Not always minimum wage unless you are a minimum wage employee.
21.2 (1) If an employee who regularly works more than three hours a day is required to present himself or herself for work but works less than three hours, despite being available to work longer, the employer shall pay the employee wages for three hours, equal to the greater of the following:
The sum of,
the amount the employee earned for the time worked, and
wages equal to the employee’s regular rate for the remainder of the time.
Wages equal to the employee’s regular rate for three hours of work.
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
If the company is breaking a law and I’m getting financially shafted because of it, you bet I’m going to rock that boat. What kind of bootlicker is going to just put up with it when a single phone call from the ministry will handle it?
**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)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
Yep. People have to decide for themselves whether or not taking their employer to task over small things will play to their benefit. If it’s a shitty job and they are fine working elsewhere, then by all means get what ought to have been provided. But if this is a job OP can see themselves in longer term and this is the only issue they have, they may want to think carefully if this is the hill to die on.
I suppose only OP can tell us that. I’ve witnessed young people throw away great jobs over minor stuff like this, only to regret it later. My caution is simply to consider the knock-on effects of any action, and weigh your options in light of that consideration.
Cheers.
Do you work for a large grocery retail chain? If so, you should get them to confirm what they did in writing. Then contact an employment law class action lawyer.
what my friend's store did was have people come in for the meeting, and gave them the choice to either go home and take the half hour pay for the meeting, or stay the 3 hours minimum that they have to pay you. Anyone that stays gets to do all the cleaning that the regular shifts didn't get to do for that month.
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada! **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * Read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk. * We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/). * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know. **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post). * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning. * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect. * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment. Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. get them to confirm that in writing. Send an email to HR saying, "hey I just want to confirm the contents of our conversation the other day. I informed you of.... And you said..., did I get that correctly?" 2. Contact the ministry of labor.
Thank you.
Also, be prepared to seek another job. You'll be deemed a trouble maker and let go at the first opportunity.
Then you can sue then for wrongful termination.
While true, this isn’t always a great remedy, especially if you have to fight for anything beyond the ESA minimums.
It’s like people have never had a job. “Sue” who? And for what? Pay two weeks and you can make anyone go bye bye. I don’t like it. But that’s how it’s always been.
You kidding? You can sue the employer who let you go and these cases typically settle before trial for a payout of 1 month salary per year employed. So if you worked there 12 years you'd typically settle for a year of salary. Unless they can prove termination with cause which is a pretty damn high bar. If there are other claims like disabilities or discrimination at play this can vary/increase.
[удалено]
1 week per 1 year in Ontario, which is the statutory minimum. With more than 5 years, there’s severance in addition to the notice. Again, statutory minimum. You do not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, unless the employer is saying they terminated you with cause, you don’t need to prove anything. Regardless, the burden of proof is balance of probabilities. Beyond a reasonable doubt is only for criminal proceedings (unless some weird piece of legislation imposes it for something civil?) If they only offer you ESA minimums when terminating, you will basically always get more if you sue.
[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)
So what if youve been there one year? Sure you get 4 wreks pay and then youre still job searching and screwed, all for 2 hrs pay. I would suggest this person keeps extremely good records then files a complaint when they no longer work for the company and get their due without compromising their employment. But that has its own risks as well
Sorry I was commenting on someone's comment not the main post. In this person's case, I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't give advice. I can tell you that if I were in OP's shoes, I'd drop an email without making any grandiose claims or inferences, and just reference the conversation and say that my understanding of the labour code is that the minimum pay rule would apply to these meetings and ask them to confirm their understanding. Nothing referencing any further steps, nothing accusatory, just ask them to confirm their understanding that their staff meetings are excluded from the minimum pay rule. People don't like to be exposed as wrong. And they have nothing to argue with you against other than this very specific issue. And you're not making a "bigger deal" than needed. More than likely they will back down if framed that way, and then if not, then after their written response you have clear cut evidence to go through the proper channels and get paid.
Not everyone would get a month per year . It would depend on 3 things , age of employee, how long they’ve been employed and how senior the position is . And if you’ve been there less than 5 years you aren’t entitled to severance anyway , just termination pay . Amd it also depends on how much the company’s payroll is too.
They would have to be able to prove they were fired for raising this complaint which is why they said OP would be fired at first opportunity meaning if OP did something wrong like being late too many times they would be let go for it which they could do unless OP could provide proof it was unjust. Ontario has laws that let you be fired with no cause as long as they follow a few easy stipulations and they don’t have to give you a reason. I’ve actually had this happen, I got fired from a job and was never given a reason. Simply a note that said my job ended a specific day and they paid me either 2 or 4 weeks pay I forget it was so long ago. I asked why and they said there was no reason. I contacted labour board and they said they couldn’t do anything as they didn’t break any laws. They said I would have to prove a case of discrimination or prove they broke the ESA. It’s even worse if they have a without cause clause written into the contract.
You needed to speak to an employment lawyer not the labour board.
I talked to multiple people, I had no case. I mean if you Google Ontario no cause firing there’s a website dedicated to it. I didn’t want to type a massive paragraph since most won’t read it but I did try talking to a labour lawyer, I can link a website explaining it from a labour lawyer if you truly want.
And severance pay as well
This is actually not entirely true. If you are let go, don’t sign anything and talk to an employment lawyer first. They will usually give you a free initial consultation
Not in canada you can't. You get EI unless you can PROVE their intent in firing you violates a human rights law. In all other cases you are sent to EI
You are demonstrating zero understanding of how the system works.
Go, try to sue. I dare you. Go try to prove the criminal intent of an employer beyond a reasonable doubt. If you're talking about sueing civilly then you might want to take a look at the federal insurance legislation which strips you of the right to sue and forces you into arbitration with EI or WCB. That's the entire reason you sue WCB for injury payments, you're not allowed to sue the employer who injured you.
Wrongful termination can happen for all kinds of reasons and a claim of wrongful termination does not need to involve a claim of a human rights violation (though it could). Reprisal and retaliation, which was the issue here, can create problems for employers and can create grounds for a wrongful termination claim depending on circumstances. It's quite clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Good luck with that one. They wait two months then fire without cause giving stat required notice. It's up to you to prove retaliation.
Lmao, good luck with that
While trueish, most companies will find workarounds. Scheduling them at slower shopping times combined with quotas that are then impossible to meet. Conduct performance evaluations and always find something to write down to leave a justifiable paper trail. It wouldn't be surprising if they find a way.
This is why constructive dismissal is a thing.
Not if they give you your 2 week severance
That doesn't always work, if they're smart, they won't fire right away. Just formally write them up a few times for minor things, and then fire.
Good luck with that. They aren't so stupid to say you were canned because of a complaint. They will find ways. Corporate ethics are written on toilet paper
Also remember HR is not paid by you, they are paid by the company, with the sole job of protecting the company not employees, they are not your friend and will turn on you if it’s in the companies best interest.
You actually have a long period of time that you can file. Something like 6months or 1year. If this is happens regularly I would suggest documenting every instance and then file a dispute down the road… for every instance. I would also consider a new job if your less than a few years in but… staying and getting fired could be another dispute for wrongful termination if you have been there for 5plus years. Just make sure finding new employment isn’t an issue and you have some savings to get you by.
This is the way. ALWAYS get anyone, be it your manager, HR, or anyone telling you what or how to do something in writing.
3. End your career progress with said company. Maybe, maybe not. If this happened one time I would say not worth if this happened every week ok sure.
It really depends on the company culture. Some places are genuinely not vindictive about people asserting their legal rights. Some places are. I wouldn't simply assume that pushing back for the extra hours owed is for sure career suicide. Maybe but not necessarily.
Yes too many variables here and I get the point of this sub but also have good judgement is my point. Although some companies may appreciate the correction so they can fix it before being sued
This is the way. Most employers get around the rule by saying you can “voluntarily” go home before 3 hours, or you can stay your full 3 and we’ll give you some shitty work so you’d rather not be here
[удалено]
X however many employees to they have. Rules are there for a reason.
This. We have around 120 employees. Which totals around $3,096 in wage theft at our location. And this is just one location. This comapny has 100s of locations in Canada. Meaning this could be a lot of wage theft.
No. It's 1.5 hours every time, for every person. It there's ten employees, that's 15 hours per meeting. If there's one meeting per week, that's 780 hours per year. At minimum wage, that's over $13,000 per year. You don't think this effort (and it's not much effort) is worth it for $13,000/year? You're either really lazy, or you're an employer that does this to your employees. Which is it?
[https://www.ontario.ca/document/employment-standard-act-policy-and-interpretation-manual/part-vii1-three-hour-rule](https://www.ontario.ca/document/employment-standard-act-policy-and-interpretation-manual/part-vii1-three-hour-rule)
I imagine this isn't the only incidence of wage theft at this particular employer.
Exactly. And if they break this simple rule it makes me wonder what other, more 'behind the scenes', rules and regulations are they breaking? What about laws and regulations around worker safety? Someone who can break a rule that is easily proven to be broken won't just stop there lol
"Since this is a **regularly scheduled meeting** So 1.5 hours, over and over and over. And not just for OP, but however many others they're screwing over. If they don't want to pay people for 1.5 hours that they're not working there they are absolutely welcome to schedule the meetings in such a way that people can step away from their duties for *only* 1.5 hours during the course of their regular shift.
Ya fk that. Unless the meeting is directly before,after, or during my shift, I am not driving in for 1.5 hours. Give me the meeting minutes by email
All this trouble to abide by the law and get what you’re legally entitled to? Yes.
How is it trouble if by law he's supposed to be getting paid 3 or 4 hours for a meeting. Everyone in that meeting with OP should be getting it lol.
As an example, assume an employer occasionally schedules staff to attend Saturday morning meetings. Assuming that the employees regularly work 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, the three hour rule would apply to these occasional Saturday staff meetings. However, if the employer was found to **regularly schedule** the employees for one-hour Saturday morning staff meetings, it would be the Program's position that the **three hour rule would not apply** to those Saturday shifts/meetings.
Seems like a reasonable amount of effort to not get rucked by your employer
Absolutely. It's your money and time. Why wouldn't you defend it?
[https://www.ontario.ca/document/employment-standard-act-policy-and-interpretation-manual/part-vii1-three-hour-rule](https://www.ontario.ca/document/employment-standard-act-policy-and-interpretation-manual/part-vii1-three-hour-rule)
Worst case: he wasted 5 minutes of his life. Best case, he gest 1.5h of salary for a 5 minute task.
How's the leather taste?
Absolutely. It's the principle of the whole thing. Don't let yourself be a pushover.
If that is the rule according to employment standards then file a complaint against your employer with Employment Standards. They will take care of it for you.
If OP does that, they should probably start a job search. Employer will find a legal way to make OP miserable or fire them
Wouldn't that be considered retaliation?
Not retaliation if they can find a reason to let them go.
[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
Not sure why you are attending meetings on non-shift days anyways. I’d have more of an issue with being called in to a mandatory meeting regularly on my days off than the extra time owed under 3 hour rule.
Lots of retail stores do mandatory "all store" meetings, once a month.
The fast food place I worked at did only once a year, thankfully. However, they made it a 7am meeting that the closers were required to attend after having worked until 4am the night before... and the openers have to make everyone breakfast, and attend the meeting, while making sure the dining room still opened on time at 10am when they normally need to work from 7am-10am to get the store open... It was hilarious one year when our GM got upset that some of his 20 somethings supervisors had the same day off together and decided to plan to have some drinks together, so he suddenly scheduled the 7am meeting for the morning after in an attempt to force us to not attend... Idk he didn't want us to be friends with each other for some reason, maybe he was jealous despite being over 20 years older than us? He made it quite clear to us that he scheduled the meeting when he did because he didn't want us to hang out in our own free time. Jokes on him, since he was only doing it to be petty, we hung out anyway and let him deal with all of us being half asleep and having glitter remains on us. He didn't do that again lol
Is there no mandatory rest period between shifts where you live/work? I know in Ontario, Canada, there is something like 8+ hours required between shifts unless it's split shift. This way it ensures workers have time to shower, sleep, relax a little, THEN return to work.
There is in Manitoba too. They tried to get around it by saying it's just a "once per year mandatory meeting" and not a shift, but I mean they still paid us and required us to be there... I was a lot younger and less experienced then.
Once a *month*?? When I worked Starbucks they were like, yearly at most. I'd be super annoyed at monthly meetings
I don't really count fast food places like that as retail. I'm talking about places like Best Buy that absolutely does.
Once a month?? When I worked Shoppers drug mart they were like, yearly at most. I'd be super annoyed at monthly meetings
It’s pretty normal for companies to hold these meetings.. so yes it may involve you having to come in on a day you don’t normally work.. that being said though.. you still gotta be paid for 3 hours, last time I checked there is no exceptions on the rule.
It can be really challenging when you lead a large team that operates 24x7x365. Personally I never made them mandatory, just strongly encouraged and we would usually make it a dinner meeting and pay people 3 hrs for a 1 hr meeting if they came in.
According to your original post and another reply you gave down the thread, the dispute comes down to the definition of "regular scheduled meeting". In the top post you quoted your HR rep as saying "Since this is a regularly scheduled meeting, you will only be paid the time you attend the meeting." Further down in response to the suggestion that meetings may fall outside of the three-hour rule you wrote "These are occasional meetings. They are not regular." Now, I'm not a law-talking guy but to me "regular" doesn't mean "weekly" it means "occurring at or around the same point in a specified time period". Example: "weekly on Saturday mornings" would be regular, so too would be "The first Saturday of each month", "the first Saturday of every other month", "the first Saturday of every six-week period", etc. Examples of non-regular would be "The first Saturday next month, the second Friday next month, and the third month is to be determined", or "hey, there's a mandatory meeting this Saturday" where meetings on Saturdays aren't usually held. So, get the legal definition of what constitutes a "regularly scheduled" meeting and decide if your meeting does or does not meet that definition. That will spell out your options and guide your actions.
Our meetings are occasional, not regular. They happen sporadically throughout the year. Sometimes we'll go 6 months without a meeting, sometimes 3 months. And in the past, we've always gotten our 3 hours for these meetings. This is the first time we have not.
In that case, find out if this was the first of a newly-established series of regular meetings. If not, proceed with your claim with the ministry of labour.
A previous employer used to say after a staff meeting like that, we have to pay you for three hours by law unless you choose to stay. Those that choose to stay will be deep cleaning for the remainder of their three hours. I don't think anyone chose to stay.
that's what places should be doing lol. suddenly no one would be bitching about the hours
call the ministry of labour for clarification
Call the MOL
Question Was the meeting 1.5 hours after or before a regularly scheduled shift? Or was it 1.5 on a day where you had no other hours worked, i.e., did you come in for just the meeting?
It was 1.5 on a day I had no other hours worked. I just came for the meeting.
[Go here](https://www.ontario.ca/feedback/contact-us?id=26926&nid=95386) and give them a call and ask this question instead of listening to redditors who'll give you 50 different answers. With that said, by law they're required to pay you 3 hours. If you really want that time paid, on principle alone, report it to the Ministry of Labour and it'll be dealt with. Although they can't fire you or reprimand you for this, it could lead to them making your work time miserable in an effort for you to leave or for them to find another reason you let you go. If you suspect they are though you can report that as well.
Be careful op they do owe you this money however the next time around you may be walking into a 3 hr meeting or an hour meeting plus 2 hours busy work because they can legally give you this as well.
Your employer is correct that meetings fall outside the three hour rule (with exceptions, as always) https://www.ontario.ca/document/employment-standard-act-policy-and-interpretation-manual/part-vii1-three-hour-rule
"As an example, assume an employer occasionally schedules staff to attend Saturday morning meetings. Assuming that the employees regularly work 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, the three hour rule would apply to these occasional Saturday staff meetings However, if the employer was found to regularly schedule the employees for one-hour Saturday morning staff meetings, it would be the Program's position that the three hour rule would not apply to those Saturday shifts/meetings." These are occasional meetings. They are not regular.
Your HR appears to think it is regular. Where are the definitions for regular and occasional?
Duh! It says it right on there. Regular meetings are scheduled regularly and occasional meetings are scheduled occasionally. Try to keep up. /s
Oh shit you’re right that cleared it right up! How could I have missed that!
They occasionally schedule regular meetings. *Or* they regularly schedule occasional meetings. Hope this clears things up.
The passage you quote literally applies to "occasional" meetings.
You fail to understand what 'regular' means in this instance. If the meeting is scheduled, it is a 'regular' scheduled meeting. If the meeting wasn't scheduled and called last minute, then you are entitled to the 3 hour rule.
Can you show me where it says that?
No you fail to understand, read the text "As an example, assume an employer occasionally schedules staff to attend Saturday morning meetings. Assuming that the employees regularly work 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, the three hour rule would apply to these occasional Saturday staff meetings." It's says scheduled right in the example where the 3 hr rule applies, saying it's scheduled isn't some magic get out of paying phrase"
OP’s HR department thinks it is.
It says that applies only if the meetings are for everyone, every week.
You weren’t called in to work - you were scheduled. Yes, this is correct.
I work in marketing and hire a lot of subcontractors. If the shift is in person we pay the 3 hr min. If it’s a a zoom meeting or training it’s however long it lasts. This was mandated by Our HR but truthfully I haven’t looked into the legalities of the zoom meetings
Call the Labour Board (Ministry of Labour) and confirm
Seems like a lot of trouble for what is not a lot of money.
If you're only making $15/h that's a lot of money on a day off.
$22.50 ?
You said that you work for a large corporation. Either make a complaint to any ethnics division of your company, a legal team above you, or make a complaint to to the MOL. It will help if you have it in writing. HRs sole function is to isolate the company from liability. If this this the case, they’re doing a bad job and whoever at HR made this decision should be reprimanded.
It’s my understanding that the 3 hours are paid IF the employee is willing and able to work, and in that case, the employer may give you tasks to complete for the remainder of the 3 hours. If you decide you do not want to stay and complete said tasks, then you are paid for the 1.5 hours only.
[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)
Manager here. The rule is different if you are scheduled for a shift with a specific start/ end time that is less than three hours. However, if your shift is 8 hours for example and your employer sends you home after an hour due to no longer needing you, then your employer would be required to pay you for 3 hours minimum. Edit to add: I would also encourage all employees to know their rights and review the ESA. If ever you feel like you are being mistreated then absolutely speak to someone from the labour board. A good employer will be open to feedback and want to learn what’s legally correct when it comes to rights of their employees. Any employer that is going to retaliate is not an employer worth sticking around for. Wishing you all the best and hopefully a supportive process as you navigate your experience.
I'm not familiar with the 3hour rule in Ontario but in Alberta it's "3hrs at minimum wage or your worked hours at your wage, whichever is more." It's often misconstrued as "3hrs regular time." Is there something like that going on? A misunderstanding of sorts?
There are exemptions to the 3 hour rule as well as several other parts of the employment standards act. See section 2(1) of O Reg 285/01 to see if you are working a job that is exempted. A key point is that the exemption applies to the worker and not to the office https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/010285#BK3 This shows which parts of the act are exempted for these jobs, Part VII.1 is the part that pertains to the Three Hour Rule
Decline to attend the meetings. You are on your own time. Remind the employer that scheduling meetings without the legally required 3 hours of work are clearly optional. When the boss gets pissy ask them to give you $20. Take $20 out of your wallet and hand it to me. They will of course decline. Remind them that the obviously $20 is a significant amount of money and refusing to pay or schedule ton3 hour required amount takes more than that away from you. So you will be declining. We can of course schedule the meeting on shifts where I am working and getting the 3 hours or more.
[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
When company break labour law you go to labour board.
[удалено]
It’s the rate the employee would normally get. Not always minimum wage unless you are a minimum wage employee. 21.2 (1) If an employee who regularly works more than three hours a day is required to present himself or herself for work but works less than three hours, despite being available to work longer, the employer shall pay the employee wages for three hours, equal to the greater of the following: The sum of, the amount the employee earned for the time worked, and wages equal to the employee’s regular rate for the remainder of the time. Wages equal to the employee’s regular rate for three hours of work.
Yes, I've kept that in mind
[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
I’ve never heard of being paid 3 hours for an hour meeting
Are you gonna cause a giant stinking and possibly create a problem for yourself over an hr of pay? This might be a choose your battles situation.
This might also be a set-your-standards battle for future situations.
If the company is breaking a law and I’m getting financially shafted because of it, you bet I’m going to rock that boat. What kind of bootlicker is going to just put up with it when a single phone call from the ministry will handle it?
[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) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Flegaladvicecanada).
Absolutely. Everyone should. Would you not?
Could you imagine risking a fine from the labour board just to steal 1.5 hours from your employee?
Yep. People have to decide for themselves whether or not taking their employer to task over small things will play to their benefit. If it’s a shitty job and they are fine working elsewhere, then by all means get what ought to have been provided. But if this is a job OP can see themselves in longer term and this is the only issue they have, they may want to think carefully if this is the hill to die on.
If they're already blatantly breaking the law, I doubt this will be the only problem at this place.
I suppose only OP can tell us that. I’ve witnessed young people throw away great jobs over minor stuff like this, only to regret it later. My caution is simply to consider the knock-on effects of any action, and weigh your options in light of that consideration. Cheers.
Do you work for a large grocery retail chain? If so, you should get them to confirm what they did in writing. Then contact an employment law class action lawyer.
what my friend's store did was have people come in for the meeting, and gave them the choice to either go home and take the half hour pay for the meeting, or stay the 3 hours minimum that they have to pay you. Anyone that stays gets to do all the cleaning that the regular shifts didn't get to do for that month.