Employment Law Question

[WhaWhaWha]

My young niece worked for a car rental agency. She had an accident while moving a vehicle for company business -- at the request of her employer. She was directed to take a truck from point A to point B on company property and not warned of potential overhead hazards on the property. She was concerned that her "G" class license did not qualify her to move the vehicle and expressed concern. She was directed to move the truck anyway. $600 damage resulted. They docked her pay. Does Canadian employment law prohibit this? Doesn't the company have to claim it on their insurance?

My searches on Canada Employment websites and google are not revealing. Opinions, referrals to resources would be greatly appreciated, please. Wisecracks less so.

Thanks

 

[dreamer]

Does Canadian employment law prohibit this?

Yes

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/00e41_e.htm

13. (1) An employer shall not withhold wages payable to an employee, make a deduction from an employee’s wages or cause the employee to return his or her wages to the employer unless authorized to do so under this section

Read all of Section 13

 

[Keebler Elf]

I think they can go after her for damages under certain circumstances (e.g., if she was being negligent), but not by docking her pay. The fact that she said she wasn't comfortable doing it would pretty much rule out their chances of success though.

 

[DistantVoyeur]

My young niece worked for a car rental agency. She had an accident while moving a vehicle for company business -- at the request of her employer. She was directed to take a truck from point A to point B on company property and not warned of potential overhead hazards on the property. She was concerned that her "G" class license did not qualify her to move the vehicle and expressed concern. She was directed to move the truck anyway. $600 damage resulted. They docked her pay. Does Canadian employment law prohibit this? Doesn't the company have to claim it on their insurance?

My searches on Canada Employment websites and google are not revealing. Opinions, referrals to resources would be greatly appreciated, please. Wisecracks less so.

Thanks

He said, she said.
Unless something is written down, they can lie their way into being right. Evidence is that she moved a vehicle and it was damaged in the process. If they wanted to say she did it herself she would have to prove otherwise.
Unless she has a witness, it could come down to circumstances. And given just the evidence, she damaged a vehicle.

That being said. Sounds like it is a crap employer and she'd be far better off just keeping quiet and getting another job. She complains too much, she can lose any reference.

<2 cents added>

 

[YellowDog]

They can't dock her pay, but when she complains about it expect her to be fired. She should be looking for another job now!

 

[calloway]

Based on the information you have provided... they can't do this. File a complaint with the Ministry of Labour. Employers are required by law to ensure that all insurance requirements are met prior to allowing any employee drive a company vehicle for company business. They will also look into and possibly fine the company for not ensuring all hazards are clearly marked. The employer is at fault 100%.

 

[Robio]

They can not touch her pay but if they try to show less hours worked or get her to pay cash it will be hard to prove. It is against the Canadian employment standards but Dammed if you do (they could make things difficult for her at work) or Dammed if she doesn't (they will try to dock more off of her for future Damage she may have not even caused)

 

[MarkII]

Here's a question. Employers are required to go through potential hazards (ALL) with new employees and both are required to sign off on the training. If they failed to do this why would she be liable in any way if any?

 

[Robio]

Money

Here's a question. Employers are required to go through potential hazards (ALL) with new employees and both are required to sign off on the training. If they failed to do this why would she be liable in any way if any?

Because they want to get some one else to pay for there mistak

 

[Moraff]

Here's a question. Employers are required to go through potential hazards (ALL) with new employees and both are required to sign off on the training. If they failed to do this why would she be liable in any way if any?

If there are no other witnesses all the employer has to say is that they did not tell her to move the vehicle. From the information we have been given they would be lying of course, but without witnesses to the contrary.......

 

[Moraff]

They can't dock her pay, but when she complains about it expect her to be fired. She should be looking for another job now!

This is why non-union jobs can suck. You can be completely 100% in the right and still get fucked over by your employer with next to no recourse. Not saying that unions are all good, but at least they help keep shit like this from happening.

 

[Robio]

the law can help

This is why non-union jobs can suck. You can be completely 100% in the right and still get fucked over by your employer with next to no recourse. Not saying that unions are all good, but at least they help keep shit like this from happening.

Ontario Employment standards can look into this
I had a book some were on this. you do not need a union to fight for you
http://www.labourrelations.org/LabourLawOntario/LabourLawOntario.html

 

[Robio]

No what have they just done ?

No shit Sherlock.
Know anyone who works at Bell? Find out what they've just done.

I do not know any current Bell employees

All I do know about Bell it was a good company that used to pay well and give great benefits then the government Brock up the monopoly and gave new competition some unfair advantages were they had to let the competition use Bell lines and services at a ridiculous discounted rate . Then Bell employees started to get cut backs on benefits and so forth which sucked.

 

[Robio]

From what I know Bell is heavily controlled by the CRTC which is the government so just how Privet Sector is it really. The government fucked up long ago with allowing the CRTC to allow competition but not some how giving the compaction an un fair advantage by bulling Bell into selling there services and lines below cost .I do not care how big you are you can only loss money for so long until it hurts

 

[Hard Idle]

If there are no other witnesses all the employer has to say is that they did not tell her to move the vehicle. From the information we have been given they would be lying of course, but without witnesses to the contrary.......

If there are no witnesses, then she can simply say "I never drove that vehicle" and then file a greivance that this whole matter was concocted as part of a harassment campaign for some reason she can dream up while drawing pay and waiting for a hearing.

There is probably electronic surveilance of her moving the truck. But there is also probably a security video of her being given the keys. If she is not licensed to operate such a truck, the owners of the vehicle are responsible to ensure no unlicensed persons have access to it. To bail the company out, the security video would have to look like she broke into where the keys are kept and took them without a supervisor's knowledge.

Who was it that gave the order? A manager or the head franchisee? If it was the manager, I'll bet he'd shit his pants if she shows up with a same-day courier ready to deliver sworn affidavits to the franchisee as well as their Fleet Insurer informing them of the manager's breach of policy and provincial law.

 

[xix]

I believe

I believe this is hazdardes/dangerous to my health or well being of the "equipment."
If she had siad like this then she would have been scott free. As others have said it's just lips service. Her best bet is to find another job then report the matter to the ministry labour board. "She had to quit because she felt threaten, harrased about the whole situation and it was just going to be a lips service fight". She should email the letter to MOL and carbon copy to the head office of the Rental company HQ. At the same time send a registered letter to both.

In the letter state she wants her money back. Also before leaving if she has one of those small mp3 players that records to have a conversation with the clown to see what his stand is without him/her knowing about the recorder. This part is not illegal unless she is a cop. A lawyer told me this when I went to seek a case but he said unless you record it I can't help you.

 

[Malibook]

If she wants to keep working there, it doesn't make sense to pursue this.
Of course they wouldn't fire her for exercising her rights but it's pretty easy to make something else up.

 

[Keebler Elf]

If there are no witnesses, then she can simply say "I never drove that vehicle" and then file a greivance...

File a grievance? With who? She's not unionized.

It's a classic he said-she said.

Bottom line is that the employer can't dock her wages and she could either go the Ministry of Labour (Office of the Worker Advisor), who will fight for her, or she could try suing. Either way, her future job prospects at the company in question would be quite bleak.

If her concern was over heath and safety, it's potentially a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. But really, all over $600? If she wants to keep her job, it's not worth it.

 

[osanowo]

Well the fact that she drove the vehicle does not really matters as the guy can't hold it off her salary - end of story.

The law will make him reimburse her.

Now if he wants to file a complaint to his insurance company as a second step, then the liability will be his as well because he's the manager.
IMHO he's fucked both ways and that will teach him to be a selfish cheap prick.

 

[Moraff]

Ontario Employment standards can look into this
I had a book some were on this. you do not need a union to fight for you
http://www.labourrelations.org/LabourLawOntario/LabourLawOntario.html

Correct, you do not need a union to fight for you, however it sure makes things easier. And just by having a union you almost certainly wouldn't have had to fight this particular battle in the first place.

Non-union: They can fire you and you've got to do all the running around to prove they were wrong to do so while trying to find a new job (since you now have no income) and I believe often all you get awarded is the wages lost between the time of firing and the time you got a new job.

Union (at least the one's I've been involved with): Can't fire you without following progressive discipline procedures. Also there is usually a Health & Safety commitee that gets involved as soon as the employee says "I refuse to do that job because I feel it is unsafe." Again, it's much easier to take that stand when you have people familiar with the workplace to back you up. Unions also have access to funds to aid your defence after it goes beyond discussion (ie grievance) in the workplace to arbitration. An employer would have to be pretty sure of their case to allow matters to go to arbitration as it costs both parties about $5K to go there.

And before I get flamed by all the anti-union zealots out there I will just say this: While it is definately true that there are bad unions out there, it is also true that there are bad employers as well.